Evangelization Vs. Proselytization

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is actually kind of hilarious, but the PP who posted all the garbage "quotes" about how life begins at conception is just a website "40 quotes from medical experts that prove human life starts at conception" None of which actually "prove" this, and many I cant even find actual quotes from, only the repeated spiel of this website "liveaction.org" citing some "science" from 1974! Are you joking bud?

Scientific" myths and scientific fact:

Given these basic facts of human embryology, it is easier to recognize the many scientifically inaccurate claims that have been advanced in the discussions about abortion, human embryo research, cloning, stem cell research, the formation of chimeras, and the use of abortifacients�and why these discussions obfuscate the objective scientific facts. The following is just a sampling of these current "scientific" myths.

Myth 1: "Prolifers claim that the abortion of a human embryo or a human fetus is wrong because it destroys human life. But human sperms and human ova are human life, too. So prolifers would also have to agree that the destruction of human sperms and human ova are no different from abortions�and that is ridiculous!"

Fact 1: As pointed out above in the background section, there is a radical difference, scientifically, between parts of a human being that only possess "human life" and a human embryo or human fetus that is an actual "human being." Abortion is the destruction of a human being. Destroying a human sperm or a human oocyte would not constitute abortion, since neither are human beings. The issue is not when does human life begin, but rather when does the life of every human being begin. A human kidney or liver, a human skin cell, a sperm or an oocyte all possess human life, but they are not human beings�they are only parts of a human being. If a single sperm or a single oocyte were implanted into a woman�s uterus, they would not grow; they would simply disintegrate.

Myth 2: "The product of fertilization is simply a �blob,� a �bunch of cells�, a �piece of the mother�s tissues�."

Fact 2: As demonstrated above, the human embryonic organism formed at fertilization is a whole human being, and therefore it is not just a "blob" or a "bunch of cells." This new human individual also has a mixture of both the mother�s and the father�s chromosomes, and therefore it is not just a "piece of the mother�s tissues". Quoting Carlson:

"... [T]hrough the mingling of maternal and paternal chromosomes, the zygote is a genetically unique product of chromosomal reassortment, which is important for the viability of any species."15 (Emphasis added.)

Myth 3: "The immediate product of fertilization is just a �potential� or a �possible� human being�not a real existing human being."

Fact 3: As demonstrated above, scientifically there is absolutely no question whatsoever that the immediate product of fertilization is a newly existing human being. A human zygote is a human being. It is not a "potential" or a "possible" human being. It�s an actual human being�with the potential to grow bigger and develop its capacities.

Myth 4: "A single-cell human zygote, or embryo, or fetus are not human beings, because they do not look like human beings."

Fact 4: As all human embryologists know, a single-cell human zygote, or a more developed human embryo, or human fetus is a human being�and that that�s the way they are supposed to look at those particular periods of development.

Myth 5: "The immediate product of fertilization is just an �it��it is neither a girl nor a boy."

Fact 5: The immediate product of fertilization is genetically already a girl or a boy�determined by the kind of sperm that fertilizes the oocyte. Quoting Carlson again:

"...[T]he sex of the future embryo is determined by the chromosomal complement of the spermatozoon. (If the sperm contains 22 autosomes and 2 X chromosomes, the embryo will be a genetic female, and if it contains 22 autosomes and an X and a Y chromosome, the embryo will be a genetic male.)"16

Myth 6: "The embryo and the embryonic period begin at implantation." (Alternative myths claim 14 days, or 3 weeks.)

Fact 6: These are a few of the most common myths perpetuated sometimes even within quasi-scientific articles�especially within the bioethics literature. As demonstrated above, the human embryo, who is a human being, begins at fertilization�not at implantation (about 5-7 days), 14-days, or 3 weeks. Thus the embryonic period also begins at fertilization, and ends by the end of the eighth week, when the fetal period begins. Quoting O�Rahilly:

"Prenatal life is conveniently divided into two phases: the embryonic and the fetal. The embryonic period proper during which the vast majority of the named structures of the body appear, occupies the first 8 postovulatory weeks. ... [T]he fetal period extends from 8 weeks to birth ..."17 (Emphasis added.)

Myth 7: "The product of fertilization, up to 14-days, is not an embryo; it is just a �pre-embryo��and therefore it can be used in experimental research, aborted, or donated."

Fact 7: This "scientific" myth is perhaps the most common error, which pervades the current literature. The term "pre-embryo" has quite a long and interesting history. (See Irving and Kischer, The Human Development Hoax: Time To Tell The Truth!, for extensive details and references.) But it roughly goes back to at least 1979 in the bioethics writings of Jesuit theologian Richard McCormick in his work with the Ethics Advisory Board to the United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare,18 and those of frog developmental biologist Dr. Clifford Grobstein in a 1979 article in Scientific American,19 and most notably in his classic book, Science and the Unborn: Choosing Human Futures (1988).20 Both McCormick and Grobstein subsequently continued propagating this scientific myth as members of the Ethics Committee of the American Fertility Society, and in numerous influential bioethics articles, leading to its common use in bioethics, theological, and public policy literature to this day.

https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/wdhbb.html

I'm not going to "refute" all of this garbage, as most of it is opinion - but here is one for you:

Biologists from 1,058 academic institutions around the world assessed survey items on when a human's life begins and, overall, 96% (5337 out of 5577) affirmed the fertilization view.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36629778

So no, it is not a myth nor is it a fact that everyone agrees on your view.

Again, this is from a student run pro-life group. You should have known this from how many times things are stated as fact ("As demonstrated above") should give you pause.

Do you have anything not just directly copied from a pro-life site? Googling "best quotes about pro-life to destroy atheists" doesnt seem to be working for you.

The study you posted is discussing OPINIONS from Americans about when life begins, not scientific facts.

You posted something that supports my posts: 96% of biologists worldwide say life begins at fertilization. Can you not understand that biologists say life begins at fertilization?

OK, and? What does that have to do with anything? No one disagrees that cells start dividing after fertilization.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Frankly I didn’t care enough to read every word of your exceedingly long post. I will sum up my concerns in a concise manner—are you trying to make me take time out of my day to listen to you talk about your religion? If so, stop it. Evangelizing or proselytizing, it is unwanted and will never endear your faith to me.

Sorry, but we are blessed to have basic human rights in our country.

I am not in your presence and I didn’t push your finger to click on this thread, you chose to do so. How are you being made to read this thread?

You made a choice to come to a religious forum, where people post about religion. Maybe you should not come to a religious forum if you don’t like religion., or people talking about religion.

It’s nonsensical to do so, and then claim to be victimized by “proselytizing.”

I didn't claim that you were proselytizing by posting this thread. I am explaining my feelings towards people who approach me--on the street, ringing my doorbell, etc. My point is that people who feel as I do don't care about semantics. We just don't want to be asked to take time from our day to listen to a monologue from someone who has a very certain point of view. If I want to learn more about a particular religion, I will take a class on it (and I have).

Unfortunately for you, we live in a country that cherishes religious freedom.
People who do those things are legally and morally allowed to do so.

Are you the poster that had a very extreme reaction to having their doorbell rung by religious people? I think in that thread, a thread about realtors putting flyers in people’s mailboxes about selling their homes was referenced from the real estate forum. It was rationally explained by many posters (and not religious posters) that people who have extreme anxiety and an outsized need to control society have issues they need to deal with.

We all encounter minor annoyances and opinions that counter our own. Our desire to silence other opinions because we don’t like them runs counter to everything our country was built upon. It is unnatural in America to wish to silence other citizens, and legally, not going to happen. We live in a free society.

I am not that poster and don't know the thread you are referring to. I did not say that people are not legally or morally forbidden to do these things. What I am trying to convey is that doing these things has the exact opposite effect that proselytizers/evangelists/whatever you want to call it desire. I assume that the desire is to interest other people in the given religion. However, when people accost me to tell me about their religion, rather than interest me, it engenders a negative opinion of the religion, as it's quite intrusive.

On the flip side, I find other religions, ones whose adherents do not inconvenience me, to be intriguing, and I am more likely to seek out information on those religions.

How you feel about religion and the differences between religions is your personal opinion, which is valid and fine.

However, Christians don’t try to convert you. They believe only God can change your mind and heart about religion, and change you into a Christian. As Christians, we don’t have any power to make you become a Christian or live as a Christian. I don’t think people understand that, because every post claims Christians think they can change someone into a Christian by talking to them or taking them to church. That’s not how it works.

Christians, some of us, do like to tell people about God. That’s personal testimony and sharing the Good News, and Jesus Christ instructs us to do so.

Please tell us you aren’t interested and move along with your day.

America was based upon freedom of speech, religion, the press, etc. You can’t stop people from saying things you don’t like, and lots of people will say things you don’t like. As adults, we learn that other people think differently than we do, and we go about our day. We don’t become enraged and hostile and try to make people stop thinking what they want or saying what they want. Legally, ethically, morally, people have a right to be religious in public and your right is to ignore them.

I am curious. Suppose a high quality study, from an organization you trusted came out and found that the PP’s experience is common. In other words, sharing your religious findings with strangers tends to turn off the listener rather than make them more open to learning about Christianity (or whatever your religion is). Would you still believe in personal testimony and sharing the Good News even if it were shown to drive people away?

What studies do you follow in your life and base your behavior on?

Seriously, it’s not a gotcha. I am just wondering in your world view (which I do not share so I am trying to understand), if you were convinced that sharing your religion with strangers actually makes them less likely to follow your religion, would you continue to evangelize?

I personally cannot understand why anyone in the 21st century would think that evangelizing is anything but a net negative among peers. Either you do not think so or you share to it experiences despite knowing it’s a turn off. I am trying to understand which it is.

So you don’t base your life on high quality studies? Why not?

What? I don’t understand this response. Of course I make choices based on high quality studies. Like for example lots of data that suggests that back sleeping is safer for babies. I put my son to sleep on his back even though he preferred to stomach sleep and as soon as he could flip himself over, he did so. Also my mom had put me to sleep on my stomach and she has been a source of great wisdom in many things, including parenting. But still, high quality studies directed my actions.

But that is truly not the point here. If some source you trust tells you that evangelizing turns people off from your religion, would you continue to evangelize?

Multiple high quality studies show religious people are happier, would you become religious based on those studies?

"Ignorance is bliss"
Im sure its not just a quote for no reason. Doesnt mean I want to follow it.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[twitter]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is actually kind of hilarious, but the PP who posted all the garbage "quotes" about how life begins at conception is just a website "40 quotes from medical experts that prove human life starts at conception" None of which actually "prove" this, and many I cant even find actual quotes from, only the repeated spiel of this website "liveaction.org" citing some "science" from 1974! Are you joking bud?

Scientific" myths and scientific fact:

Given these basic facts of human embryology, it is easier to recognize the many scientifically inaccurate claims that have been advanced in the discussions about abortion, human embryo research, cloning, stem cell research, the formation of chimeras, and the use of abortifacients�and why these discussions obfuscate the objective scientific facts. The following is just a sampling of these current "scientific" myths.

Myth 1: "Prolifers claim that the abortion of a human embryo or a human fetus is wrong because it destroys human life. But human sperms and human ova are human life, too. So prolifers would also have to agree that the destruction of human sperms and human ova are no different from abortions�and that is ridiculous!"

Fact 1: As pointed out above in the background section, there is a radical difference, scientifically, between parts of a human being that only possess "human life" and a human embryo or human fetus that is an actual "human being." Abortion is the destruction of a human being. Destroying a human sperm or a human oocyte would not constitute abortion, since neither are human beings. The issue is not when does human life begin, but rather when does the life of every human being begin. A human kidney or liver, a human skin cell, a sperm or an oocyte all possess human life, but they are not human beings�they are only parts of a human being. If a single sperm or a single oocyte were implanted into a woman�s uterus, they would not grow; they would simply disintegrate.

Myth 2: "The product of fertilization is simply a �blob,� a �bunch of cells�, a �piece of the mother�s tissues�."

Fact 2: As demonstrated above, the human embryonic organism formed at fertilization is a whole human being, and therefore it is not just a "blob" or a "bunch of cells." This new human individual also has a mixture of both the mother�s and the father�s chromosomes, and therefore it is not just a "piece of the mother�s tissues". Quoting Carlson:

"... [T]hrough the mingling of maternal and paternal chromosomes, the zygote is a genetically unique product of chromosomal reassortment, which is important for the viability of any species."15 (Emphasis added.)

Myth 3: "The immediate product of fertilization is just a �potential� or a �possible� human being�not a real existing human being."

Fact 3: As demonstrated above, scientifically there is absolutely no question whatsoever that the immediate product of fertilization is a newly existing human being. A human zygote is a human being. It is not a "potential" or a "possible" human being. It�s an actual human being�with the potential to grow bigger and develop its capacities.

Myth 4: "A single-cell human zygote, or embryo, or fetus are not human beings, because they do not look like human beings."

Fact 4: As all human embryologists know, a single-cell human zygote, or a more developed human embryo, or human fetus is a human being�and that that�s the way they are supposed to look at those particular periods of development.

Myth 5: "The immediate product of fertilization is just an �it��it is neither a girl nor a boy."

Fact 5: The immediate product of fertilization is genetically already a girl or a boy�determined by the kind of sperm that fertilizes the oocyte. Quoting Carlson again:

"...[T]he sex of the future embryo is determined by the chromosomal complement of the spermatozoon. (If the sperm contains 22 autosomes and 2 X chromosomes, the embryo will be a genetic female, and if it contains 22 autosomes and an X and a Y chromosome, the embryo will be a genetic male.)"16

Myth 6: "The embryo and the embryonic period begin at implantation." (Alternative myths claim 14 days, or 3 weeks.)

Fact 6: These are a few of the most common myths perpetuated sometimes even within quasi-scientific articles�especially within the bioethics literature. As demonstrated above, the human embryo, who is a human being, begins at fertilization�not at implantation (about 5-7 days), 14-days, or 3 weeks. Thus the embryonic period also begins at fertilization, and ends by the end of the eighth week, when the fetal period begins. Quoting O�Rahilly:

"Prenatal life is conveniently divided into two phases: the embryonic and the fetal. The embryonic period proper during which the vast majority of the named structures of the body appear, occupies the first 8 postovulatory weeks. ... [T]he fetal period extends from 8 weeks to birth ..."17 (Emphasis added.)

Myth 7: "The product of fertilization, up to 14-days, is not an embryo; it is just a �pre-embryo��and therefore it can be used in experimental research, aborted, or donated."

Fact 7: This "scientific" myth is perhaps the most common error, which pervades the current literature. The term "pre-embryo" has quite a long and interesting history. (See Irving and Kischer, The Human Development Hoax: Time To Tell The Truth!, for extensive details and references.) But it roughly goes back to at least 1979 in the bioethics writings of Jesuit theologian Richard McCormick in his work with the Ethics Advisory Board to the United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare,18 and those of frog developmental biologist Dr. Clifford Grobstein in a 1979 article in Scientific American,19 and most notably in his classic book, Science and the Unborn: Choosing Human Futures (1988).20 Both McCormick and Grobstein subsequently continued propagating this scientific myth as members of the Ethics Committee of the American Fertility Society, and in numerous influential bioethics articles, leading to its common use in bioethics, theological, and public policy literature to this day.

https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/wdhbb.html

This isnt some sort of scientific website, its a student run pro-life group posting this.

Princeton Pro-Life is a student-run organization devoted to promoting a culture of life on campus and in the world beyond... We also organize a trip to the annual March for Life in Washington D.C. in January.

So unbiased! So scientific!

Ok- can you refute the information?

I dont need to disprove someones opinion. Their opinion is arguing the difference between human life and human being. I dont think this was adequately answered in the first paragraph (that you conveniently left out). Especially seeing how many times "science" comes up (why is it quoted as such?) it doesnt seem like a very scientific bit of writing. Perhaps as "scientific" as the group promoting it.

+1

The PP doesn’t understand the difference between an opinion and a (scientific) fact. Someone tells PP what to believe so PP believes it as if it’s a fact.

Can you show what in the 2 posts from Princeton resources that are opinions?

definition of "potential human being" vs. "potential person"

whether unimplanted embryos can be "used in experimental research, aborted, or donated" or not

the whole list of "myths" are strawmen; maybe relevant for your religious views around "life", but irrelevant for legal rights

Humans have different stages of life.
You are either a human or you are not; you aren’t “something else” that magically transforms into a human later on. Humans are humans throughout their entire life spans.

The quotes are quotes are not from religious people, they are from scientists. Biologists. Geneticists. Doctors.

Suddenly dcum doesn’t want to follow the science, weird.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is actually kind of hilarious, but the PP who posted all the garbage "quotes" about how life begins at conception is just a website "40 quotes from medical experts that prove human life starts at conception" None of which actually "prove" this, and many I cant even find actual quotes from, only the repeated spiel of this website "liveaction.org" citing some "science" from 1974! Are you joking bud?

Scientific" myths and scientific fact:

Given these basic facts of human embryology, it is easier to recognize the many scientifically inaccurate claims that have been advanced in the discussions about abortion, human embryo research, cloning, stem cell research, the formation of chimeras, and the use of abortifacients�and why these discussions obfuscate the objective scientific facts. The following is just a sampling of these current "scientific" myths.

Myth 1: "Prolifers claim that the abortion of a human embryo or a human fetus is wrong because it destroys human life. But human sperms and human ova are human life, too. So prolifers would also have to agree that the destruction of human sperms and human ova are no different from abortions�and that is ridiculous!"

Fact 1: As pointed out above in the background section, there is a radical difference, scientifically, between parts of a human being that only possess "human life" and a human embryo or human fetus that is an actual "human being." Abortion is the destruction of a human being. Destroying a human sperm or a human oocyte would not constitute abortion, since neither are human beings. The issue is not when does human life begin, but rather when does the life of every human being begin. A human kidney or liver, a human skin cell, a sperm or an oocyte all possess human life, but they are not human beings�they are only parts of a human being. If a single sperm or a single oocyte were implanted into a woman�s uterus, they would not grow; they would simply disintegrate.

Myth 2: "The product of fertilization is simply a �blob,� a �bunch of cells�, a �piece of the mother�s tissues�."

Fact 2: As demonstrated above, the human embryonic organism formed at fertilization is a whole human being, and therefore it is not just a "blob" or a "bunch of cells." This new human individual also has a mixture of both the mother�s and the father�s chromosomes, and therefore it is not just a "piece of the mother�s tissues". Quoting Carlson:

"... [T]hrough the mingling of maternal and paternal chromosomes, the zygote is a genetically unique product of chromosomal reassortment, which is important for the viability of any species."15 (Emphasis added.)

Myth 3: "The immediate product of fertilization is just a �potential� or a �possible� human being�not a real existing human being."

Fact 3: As demonstrated above, scientifically there is absolutely no question whatsoever that the immediate product of fertilization is a newly existing human being. A human zygote is a human being. It is not a "potential" or a "possible" human being. It�s an actual human being�with the potential to grow bigger and develop its capacities.

Myth 4: "A single-cell human zygote, or embryo, or fetus are not human beings, because they do not look like human beings."

Fact 4: As all human embryologists know, a single-cell human zygote, or a more developed human embryo, or human fetus is a human being�and that that�s the way they are supposed to look at those particular periods of development.

Myth 5: "The immediate product of fertilization is just an �it��it is neither a girl nor a boy."

Fact 5: The immediate product of fertilization is genetically already a girl or a boy�determined by the kind of sperm that fertilizes the oocyte. Quoting Carlson again:

"...[T]he sex of the future embryo is determined by the chromosomal complement of the spermatozoon. (If the sperm contains 22 autosomes and 2 X chromosomes, the embryo will be a genetic female, and if it contains 22 autosomes and an X and a Y chromosome, the embryo will be a genetic male.)"16

Myth 6: "The embryo and the embryonic period begin at implantation." (Alternative myths claim 14 days, or 3 weeks.)

Fact 6: These are a few of the most common myths perpetuated sometimes even within quasi-scientific articles�especially within the bioethics literature. As demonstrated above, the human embryo, who is a human being, begins at fertilization�not at implantation (about 5-7 days), 14-days, or 3 weeks. Thus the embryonic period also begins at fertilization, and ends by the end of the eighth week, when the fetal period begins. Quoting O�Rahilly:

"Prenatal life is conveniently divided into two phases: the embryonic and the fetal. The embryonic period proper during which the vast majority of the named structures of the body appear, occupies the first 8 postovulatory weeks. ... [T]he fetal period extends from 8 weeks to birth ..."17 (Emphasis added.)

Myth 7: "The product of fertilization, up to 14-days, is not an embryo; it is just a �pre-embryo��and therefore it can be used in experimental research, aborted, or donated."

Fact 7: This "scientific" myth is perhaps the most common error, which pervades the current literature. The term "pre-embryo" has quite a long and interesting history. (See Irving and Kischer, The Human Development Hoax: Time To Tell The Truth!, for extensive details and references.) But it roughly goes back to at least 1979 in the bioethics writings of Jesuit theologian Richard McCormick in his work with the Ethics Advisory Board to the United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare,18 and those of frog developmental biologist Dr. Clifford Grobstein in a 1979 article in Scientific American,19 and most notably in his classic book, Science and the Unborn: Choosing Human Futures (1988).20 Both McCormick and Grobstein subsequently continued propagating this scientific myth as members of the Ethics Committee of the American Fertility Society, and in numerous influential bioethics articles, leading to its common use in bioethics, theological, and public policy literature to this day.

https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/wdhbb.html

I'm not going to "refute" all of this garbage, as most of it is opinion - but here is one for you:

Biologists from 1,058 academic institutions around the world assessed survey items on when a human's life begins and, overall, 96% (5337 out of 5577) affirmed the fertilization view.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36629778

So no, it is not a myth nor is it a fact that everyone agrees on your view.

Again, this is from a student run pro-life group. You should have known this from how many times things are stated as fact ("As demonstrated above") should give you pause.

Do you have anything not just directly copied from a pro-life site? Googling "best quotes about pro-life to destroy atheists" doesnt seem to be working for you.

The study you posted is discussing OPINIONS from Americans about when life begins, not scientific facts.

You posted something that supports my posts: 96% of biologists worldwide say life begins at fertilization. Can you not understand that biologists say life begins at fertilization?

OK, and? What does that have to do with anything? No one disagrees that cells start dividing after fertilization.

Cells? A human is a human throughout his or her entire life.

A human is a human at every stage of development. Every human goes through developmental stages and at every stage they are human.

People here work really hard to dehumanize humans, it’s scary. It’s also clear how Nazis were able to come to power. Dehumanizing humans was their specialty, and dcum posters are following right along. It’s really disgusting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is actually kind of hilarious, but the PP who posted all the garbage "quotes" about how life begins at conception is just a website "40 quotes from medical experts that prove human life starts at conception" None of which actually "prove" this, and many I cant even find actual quotes from, only the repeated spiel of this website "liveaction.org" citing some "science" from 1974! Are you joking bud?

Scientific" myths and scientific fact:

Given these basic facts of human embryology, it is easier to recognize the many scientifically inaccurate claims that have been advanced in the discussions about abortion, human embryo research, cloning, stem cell research, the formation of chimeras, and the use of abortifacients�and why these discussions obfuscate the objective scientific facts. The following is just a sampling of these current "scientific" myths.

Myth 1: "Prolifers claim that the abortion of a human embryo or a human fetus is wrong because it destroys human life. But human sperms and human ova are human life, too. So prolifers would also have to agree that the destruction of human sperms and human ova are no different from abortions�and that is ridiculous!"

Fact 1: As pointed out above in the background section, there is a radical difference, scientifically, between parts of a human being that only possess "human life" and a human embryo or human fetus that is an actual "human being." Abortion is the destruction of a human being. Destroying a human sperm or a human oocyte would not constitute abortion, since neither are human beings. The issue is not when does human life begin, but rather when does the life of every human being begin. A human kidney or liver, a human skin cell, a sperm or an oocyte all possess human life, but they are not human beings�they are only parts of a human being. If a single sperm or a single oocyte were implanted into a woman�s uterus, they would not grow; they would simply disintegrate.

Myth 2: "The product of fertilization is simply a �blob,� a �bunch of cells�, a �piece of the mother�s tissues�."

Fact 2: As demonstrated above, the human embryonic organism formed at fertilization is a whole human being, and therefore it is not just a "blob" or a "bunch of cells." This new human individual also has a mixture of both the mother�s and the father�s chromosomes, and therefore it is not just a "piece of the mother�s tissues". Quoting Carlson:

"... [T]hrough the mingling of maternal and paternal chromosomes, the zygote is a genetically unique product of chromosomal reassortment, which is important for the viability of any species."15 (Emphasis added.)

Myth 3: "The immediate product of fertilization is just a �potential� or a �possible� human being�not a real existing human being."

Fact 3: As demonstrated above, scientifically there is absolutely no question whatsoever that the immediate product of fertilization is a newly existing human being. A human zygote is a human being. It is not a "potential" or a "possible" human being. It�s an actual human being�with the potential to grow bigger and develop its capacities.

Myth 4: "A single-cell human zygote, or embryo, or fetus are not human beings, because they do not look like human beings."

Fact 4: As all human embryologists know, a single-cell human zygote, or a more developed human embryo, or human fetus is a human being�and that that�s the way they are supposed to look at those particular periods of development.

Myth 5: "The immediate product of fertilization is just an �it��it is neither a girl nor a boy."

Fact 5: The immediate product of fertilization is genetically already a girl or a boy�determined by the kind of sperm that fertilizes the oocyte. Quoting Carlson again:

"...[T]he sex of the future embryo is determined by the chromosomal complement of the spermatozoon. (If the sperm contains 22 autosomes and 2 X chromosomes, the embryo will be a genetic female, and if it contains 22 autosomes and an X and a Y chromosome, the embryo will be a genetic male.)"16

Myth 6: "The embryo and the embryonic period begin at implantation." (Alternative myths claim 14 days, or 3 weeks.)

Fact 6: These are a few of the most common myths perpetuated sometimes even within quasi-scientific articles�especially within the bioethics literature. As demonstrated above, the human embryo, who is a human being, begins at fertilization�not at implantation (about 5-7 days), 14-days, or 3 weeks. Thus the embryonic period also begins at fertilization, and ends by the end of the eighth week, when the fetal period begins. Quoting O�Rahilly:

"Prenatal life is conveniently divided into two phases: the embryonic and the fetal. The embryonic period proper during which the vast majority of the named structures of the body appear, occupies the first 8 postovulatory weeks. ... [T]he fetal period extends from 8 weeks to birth ..."17 (Emphasis added.)

Myth 7: "The product of fertilization, up to 14-days, is not an embryo; it is just a �pre-embryo��and therefore it can be used in experimental research, aborted, or donated."

Fact 7: This "scientific" myth is perhaps the most common error, which pervades the current literature. The term "pre-embryo" has quite a long and interesting history. (See Irving and Kischer, The Human Development Hoax: Time To Tell The Truth!, for extensive details and references.) But it roughly goes back to at least 1979 in the bioethics writings of Jesuit theologian Richard McCormick in his work with the Ethics Advisory Board to the United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare,18 and those of frog developmental biologist Dr. Clifford Grobstein in a 1979 article in Scientific American,19 and most notably in his classic book, Science and the Unborn: Choosing Human Futures (1988).20 Both McCormick and Grobstein subsequently continued propagating this scientific myth as members of the Ethics Committee of the American Fertility Society, and in numerous influential bioethics articles, leading to its common use in bioethics, theological, and public policy literature to this day.

https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/wdhbb.html

I'm not going to "refute" all of this garbage, as most of it is opinion - but here is one for you:

Biologists from 1,058 academic institutions around the world assessed survey items on when a human's life begins and, overall, 96% (5337 out of 5577) affirmed the fertilization view.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36629778

So no, it is not a myth nor is it a fact that everyone agrees on your view.

Again, this is from a student run pro-life group. You should have known this from how many times things are stated as fact ("As demonstrated above") should give you pause.

Do you have anything not just directly copied from a pro-life site? Googling "best quotes about pro-life to destroy atheists" doesnt seem to be working for you.

The study you posted is discussing OPINIONS from Americans about when life begins, not scientific facts.

You posted something that supports my posts: 96% of biologists worldwide say life begins at fertilization. Can you not understand that biologists say life begins at fertilization?

OK, and? What does that have to do with anything? No one disagrees that cells start dividing after fertilization.

Cells? A human is a human throughout his or her entire life.

A human is a human at every stage of development. Every human goes through developmental stages and at every stage they are human.

People here work really hard to dehumanize humans, it’s scary. It’s also clear how Nazis were able to come to power. Dehumanizing humans was their specialty, and dcum posters are following right along. It’s really disgusting.

I lost the plot awhile ago. What does any of this stuff ^ have to do with Evangelization Vs. Proselytization?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[twitter]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is actually kind of hilarious, but the PP who posted all the garbage "quotes" about how life begins at conception is just a website "40 quotes from medical experts that prove human life starts at conception" None of which actually "prove" this, and many I cant even find actual quotes from, only the repeated spiel of this website "liveaction.org" citing some "science" from 1974! Are you joking bud?

Scientific" myths and scientific fact:

Given these basic facts of human embryology, it is easier to recognize the many scientifically inaccurate claims that have been advanced in the discussions about abortion, human embryo research, cloning, stem cell research, the formation of chimeras, and the use of abortifacients�and why these discussions obfuscate the objective scientific facts. The following is just a sampling of these current "scientific" myths.

Myth 1: "Prolifers claim that the abortion of a human embryo or a human fetus is wrong because it destroys human life. But human sperms and human ova are human life, too. So prolifers would also have to agree that the destruction of human sperms and human ova are no different from abortions�and that is ridiculous!"

Fact 1: As pointed out above in the background section, there is a radical difference, scientifically, between parts of a human being that only possess "human life" and a human embryo or human fetus that is an actual "human being." Abortion is the destruction of a human being. Destroying a human sperm or a human oocyte would not constitute abortion, since neither are human beings. The issue is not when does human life begin, but rather when does the life of every human being begin. A human kidney or liver, a human skin cell, a sperm or an oocyte all possess human life, but they are not human beings�they are only parts of a human being. If a single sperm or a single oocyte were implanted into a woman�s uterus, they would not grow; they would simply disintegrate.

Myth 2: "The product of fertilization is simply a �blob,� a �bunch of cells�, a �piece of the mother�s tissues�."

Fact 2: As demonstrated above, the human embryonic organism formed at fertilization is a whole human being, and therefore it is not just a "blob" or a "bunch of cells." This new human individual also has a mixture of both the mother�s and the father�s chromosomes, and therefore it is not just a "piece of the mother�s tissues". Quoting Carlson:

"... [T]hrough the mingling of maternal and paternal chromosomes, the zygote is a genetically unique product of chromosomal reassortment, which is important for the viability of any species."15 (Emphasis added.)

Myth 3: "The immediate product of fertilization is just a �potential� or a �possible� human being�not a real existing human being."

Fact 3: As demonstrated above, scientifically there is absolutely no question whatsoever that the immediate product of fertilization is a newly existing human being. A human zygote is a human being. It is not a "potential" or a "possible" human being. It�s an actual human being�with the potential to grow bigger and develop its capacities.

Myth 4: "A single-cell human zygote, or embryo, or fetus are not human beings, because they do not look like human beings."

Fact 4: As all human embryologists know, a single-cell human zygote, or a more developed human embryo, or human fetus is a human being�and that that�s the way they are supposed to look at those particular periods of development.

Myth 5: "The immediate product of fertilization is just an �it��it is neither a girl nor a boy."

Fact 5: The immediate product of fertilization is genetically already a girl or a boy�determined by the kind of sperm that fertilizes the oocyte. Quoting Carlson again:

"...[T]he sex of the future embryo is determined by the chromosomal complement of the spermatozoon. (If the sperm contains 22 autosomes and 2 X chromosomes, the embryo will be a genetic female, and if it contains 22 autosomes and an X and a Y chromosome, the embryo will be a genetic male.)"16

Myth 6: "The embryo and the embryonic period begin at implantation." (Alternative myths claim 14 days, or 3 weeks.)

Fact 6: These are a few of the most common myths perpetuated sometimes even within quasi-scientific articles�especially within the bioethics literature. As demonstrated above, the human embryo, who is a human being, begins at fertilization�not at implantation (about 5-7 days), 14-days, or 3 weeks. Thus the embryonic period also begins at fertilization, and ends by the end of the eighth week, when the fetal period begins. Quoting O�Rahilly:

"Prenatal life is conveniently divided into two phases: the embryonic and the fetal. The embryonic period proper during which the vast majority of the named structures of the body appear, occupies the first 8 postovulatory weeks. ... [T]he fetal period extends from 8 weeks to birth ..."17 (Emphasis added.)

Myth 7: "The product of fertilization, up to 14-days, is not an embryo; it is just a �pre-embryo��and therefore it can be used in experimental research, aborted, or donated."

Fact 7: This "scientific" myth is perhaps the most common error, which pervades the current literature. The term "pre-embryo" has quite a long and interesting history. (See Irving and Kischer, The Human Development Hoax: Time To Tell The Truth!, for extensive details and references.) But it roughly goes back to at least 1979 in the bioethics writings of Jesuit theologian Richard McCormick in his work with the Ethics Advisory Board to the United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare,18 and those of frog developmental biologist Dr. Clifford Grobstein in a 1979 article in Scientific American,19 and most notably in his classic book, Science and the Unborn: Choosing Human Futures (1988).20 Both McCormick and Grobstein subsequently continued propagating this scientific myth as members of the Ethics Committee of the American Fertility Society, and in numerous influential bioethics articles, leading to its common use in bioethics, theological, and public policy literature to this day.

https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/wdhbb.html

This isnt some sort of scientific website, its a student run pro-life group posting this.

Princeton Pro-Life is a student-run organization devoted to promoting a culture of life on campus and in the world beyond... We also organize a trip to the annual March for Life in Washington D.C. in January.

So unbiased! So scientific!

Ok- can you refute the information?

I dont need to disprove someones opinion. Their opinion is arguing the difference between human life and human being. I dont think this was adequately answered in the first paragraph (that you conveniently left out). Especially seeing how many times "science" comes up (why is it quoted as such?) it doesnt seem like a very scientific bit of writing. Perhaps as "scientific" as the group promoting it.

+1

The PP doesn’t understand the difference between an opinion and a (scientific) fact. Someone tells PP what to believe so PP believes it as if it’s a fact.

Can you show what in the 2 posts from Princeton resources that are opinions?

definition of "potential human being" vs. "potential person"

whether unimplanted embryos can be "used in experimental research, aborted, or donated" or not

the whole list of "myths" are strawmen; maybe relevant for your religious views around "life", but irrelevant for legal rights

Humans have different stages of life.
You are either a human or you are not; you aren’t “something else” that magically transforms into a human later on. Humans are humans throughout their entire life spans.

The quotes are quotes are not from religious people, they are from scientists. Biologists. Geneticists. Doctors.

Suddenly dcum doesn’t want to follow the science, weird.

Like I said, strawman. No one said that an embryo isn’t an early form of human.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is actually kind of hilarious, but the PP who posted all the garbage "quotes" about how life begins at conception is just a website "40 quotes from medical experts that prove human life starts at conception" None of which actually "prove" this, and many I cant even find actual quotes from, only the repeated spiel of this website "liveaction.org" citing some "science" from 1974! Are you joking bud?

Scientific" myths and scientific fact:

Given these basic facts of human embryology, it is easier to recognize the many scientifically inaccurate claims that have been advanced in the discussions about abortion, human embryo research, cloning, stem cell research, the formation of chimeras, and the use of abortifacients�and why these discussions obfuscate the objective scientific facts. The following is just a sampling of these current "scientific" myths.

Myth 1: "Prolifers claim that the abortion of a human embryo or a human fetus is wrong because it destroys human life. But human sperms and human ova are human life, too. So prolifers would also have to agree that the destruction of human sperms and human ova are no different from abortions�and that is ridiculous!"

Fact 1: As pointed out above in the background section, there is a radical difference, scientifically, between parts of a human being that only possess "human life" and a human embryo or human fetus that is an actual "human being." Abortion is the destruction of a human being. Destroying a human sperm or a human oocyte would not constitute abortion, since neither are human beings. The issue is not when does human life begin, but rather when does the life of every human being begin. A human kidney or liver, a human skin cell, a sperm or an oocyte all possess human life, but they are not human beings�they are only parts of a human being. If a single sperm or a single oocyte were implanted into a woman�s uterus, they would not grow; they would simply disintegrate.

Myth 2: "The product of fertilization is simply a �blob,� a �bunch of cells�, a �piece of the mother�s tissues�."

Fact 2: As demonstrated above, the human embryonic organism formed at fertilization is a whole human being, and therefore it is not just a "blob" or a "bunch of cells." This new human individual also has a mixture of both the mother�s and the father�s chromosomes, and therefore it is not just a "piece of the mother�s tissues". Quoting Carlson:

"... [T]hrough the mingling of maternal and paternal chromosomes, the zygote is a genetically unique product of chromosomal reassortment, which is important for the viability of any species."15 (Emphasis added.)

Myth 3: "The immediate product of fertilization is just a �potential� or a �possible� human being�not a real existing human being."

Fact 3: As demonstrated above, scientifically there is absolutely no question whatsoever that the immediate product of fertilization is a newly existing human being. A human zygote is a human being. It is not a "potential" or a "possible" human being. It�s an actual human being�with the potential to grow bigger and develop its capacities.

Myth 4: "A single-cell human zygote, or embryo, or fetus are not human beings, because they do not look like human beings."

Fact 4: As all human embryologists know, a single-cell human zygote, or a more developed human embryo, or human fetus is a human being�and that that�s the way they are supposed to look at those particular periods of development.

Myth 5: "The immediate product of fertilization is just an �it��it is neither a girl nor a boy."

Fact 5: The immediate product of fertilization is genetically already a girl or a boy�determined by the kind of sperm that fertilizes the oocyte. Quoting Carlson again:

"...[T]he sex of the future embryo is determined by the chromosomal complement of the spermatozoon. (If the sperm contains 22 autosomes and 2 X chromosomes, the embryo will be a genetic female, and if it contains 22 autosomes and an X and a Y chromosome, the embryo will be a genetic male.)"16

Myth 6: "The embryo and the embryonic period begin at implantation." (Alternative myths claim 14 days, or 3 weeks.)

Fact 6: These are a few of the most common myths perpetuated sometimes even within quasi-scientific articles�especially within the bioethics literature. As demonstrated above, the human embryo, who is a human being, begins at fertilization�not at implantation (about 5-7 days), 14-days, or 3 weeks. Thus the embryonic period also begins at fertilization, and ends by the end of the eighth week, when the fetal period begins. Quoting O�Rahilly:

"Prenatal life is conveniently divided into two phases: the embryonic and the fetal. The embryonic period proper during which the vast majority of the named structures of the body appear, occupies the first 8 postovulatory weeks. ... [T]he fetal period extends from 8 weeks to birth ..."17 (Emphasis added.)

Myth 7: "The product of fertilization, up to 14-days, is not an embryo; it is just a �pre-embryo��and therefore it can be used in experimental research, aborted, or donated."

Fact 7: This "scientific" myth is perhaps the most common error, which pervades the current literature. The term "pre-embryo" has quite a long and interesting history. (See Irving and Kischer, The Human Development Hoax: Time To Tell The Truth!, for extensive details and references.) But it roughly goes back to at least 1979 in the bioethics writings of Jesuit theologian Richard McCormick in his work with the Ethics Advisory Board to the United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare,18 and those of frog developmental biologist Dr. Clifford Grobstein in a 1979 article in Scientific American,19 and most notably in his classic book, Science and the Unborn: Choosing Human Futures (1988).20 Both McCormick and Grobstein subsequently continued propagating this scientific myth as members of the Ethics Committee of the American Fertility Society, and in numerous influential bioethics articles, leading to its common use in bioethics, theological, and public policy literature to this day.

https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/wdhbb.html

I'm not going to "refute" all of this garbage, as most of it is opinion - but here is one for you:

Biologists from 1,058 academic institutions around the world assessed survey items on when a human's life begins and, overall, 96% (5337 out of 5577) affirmed the fertilization view.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36629778

So no, it is not a myth nor is it a fact that everyone agrees on your view.

Again, this is from a student run pro-life group. You should have known this from how many times things are stated as fact ("As demonstrated above") should give you pause.

Do you have anything not just directly copied from a pro-life site? Googling "best quotes about pro-life to destroy atheists" doesnt seem to be working for you.

The study you posted is discussing OPINIONS from Americans about when life begins, not scientific facts.

You posted something that supports my posts: 96% of biologists worldwide say life begins at fertilization. Can you not understand that biologists say life begins at fertilization?

OK, and? What does that have to do with anything? No one disagrees that cells start dividing after fertilization.

Cells? A human is a human throughout his or her entire life.

A human is a human at every stage of development. Every human goes through developmental stages and at every stage they are human.

People here work really hard to dehumanize humans, it’s scary. It’s also clear how Nazis were able to come to power. Dehumanizing humans was their specialty, and dcum posters are following right along. It’s really disgusting.

Again, strawman. No one said that those cells aren’t human.

Nazis? Get a grip.

Just keep your religion to yourself FFS. Don’t push it on vulnerable people. And don’t take away other people’s rights because of it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is actually kind of hilarious, but the PP who posted all the garbage "quotes" about how life begins at conception is just a website "40 quotes from medical experts that prove human life starts at conception" None of which actually "prove" this, and many I cant even find actual quotes from, only the repeated spiel of this website "liveaction.org" citing some "science" from 1974! Are you joking bud?

Scientific" myths and scientific fact:

Given these basic facts of human embryology, it is easier to recognize the many scientifically inaccurate claims that have been advanced in the discussions about abortion, human embryo research, cloning, stem cell research, the formation of chimeras, and the use of abortifacients�and why these discussions obfuscate the objective scientific facts. The following is just a sampling of these current "scientific" myths.

Myth 1: "Prolifers claim that the abortion of a human embryo or a human fetus is wrong because it destroys human life. But human sperms and human ova are human life, too. So prolifers would also have to agree that the destruction of human sperms and human ova are no different from abortions�and that is ridiculous!"

Fact 1: As pointed out above in the background section, there is a radical difference, scientifically, between parts of a human being that only possess "human life" and a human embryo or human fetus that is an actual "human being." Abortion is the destruction of a human being. Destroying a human sperm or a human oocyte would not constitute abortion, since neither are human beings. The issue is not when does human life begin, but rather when does the life of every human being begin. A human kidney or liver, a human skin cell, a sperm or an oocyte all possess human life, but they are not human beings�they are only parts of a human being. If a single sperm or a single oocyte were implanted into a woman�s uterus, they would not grow; they would simply disintegrate.

Myth 2: "The product of fertilization is simply a �blob,� a �bunch of cells�, a �piece of the mother�s tissues�."

Fact 2: As demonstrated above, the human embryonic organism formed at fertilization is a whole human being, and therefore it is not just a "blob" or a "bunch of cells." This new human individual also has a mixture of both the mother�s and the father�s chromosomes, and therefore it is not just a "piece of the mother�s tissues". Quoting Carlson:

"... [T]hrough the mingling of maternal and paternal chromosomes, the zygote is a genetically unique product of chromosomal reassortment, which is important for the viability of any species."15 (Emphasis added.)

Myth 3: "The immediate product of fertilization is just a �potential� or a �possible� human being�not a real existing human being."

Fact 3: As demonstrated above, scientifically there is absolutely no question whatsoever that the immediate product of fertilization is a newly existing human being. A human zygote is a human being. It is not a "potential" or a "possible" human being. It�s an actual human being�with the potential to grow bigger and develop its capacities.

Myth 4: "A single-cell human zygote, or embryo, or fetus are not human beings, because they do not look like human beings."

Fact 4: As all human embryologists know, a single-cell human zygote, or a more developed human embryo, or human fetus is a human being�and that that�s the way they are supposed to look at those particular periods of development.

Myth 5: "The immediate product of fertilization is just an �it��it is neither a girl nor a boy."

Fact 5: The immediate product of fertilization is genetically already a girl or a boy�determined by the kind of sperm that fertilizes the oocyte. Quoting Carlson again:

"...[T]he sex of the future embryo is determined by the chromosomal complement of the spermatozoon. (If the sperm contains 22 autosomes and 2 X chromosomes, the embryo will be a genetic female, and if it contains 22 autosomes and an X and a Y chromosome, the embryo will be a genetic male.)"16

Myth 6: "The embryo and the embryonic period begin at implantation." (Alternative myths claim 14 days, or 3 weeks.)

Fact 6: These are a few of the most common myths perpetuated sometimes even within quasi-scientific articles�especially within the bioethics literature. As demonstrated above, the human embryo, who is a human being, begins at fertilization�not at implantation (about 5-7 days), 14-days, or 3 weeks. Thus the embryonic period also begins at fertilization, and ends by the end of the eighth week, when the fetal period begins. Quoting O�Rahilly:

"Prenatal life is conveniently divided into two phases: the embryonic and the fetal. The embryonic period proper during which the vast majority of the named structures of the body appear, occupies the first 8 postovulatory weeks. ... [T]he fetal period extends from 8 weeks to birth ..."17 (Emphasis added.)

Myth 7: "The product of fertilization, up to 14-days, is not an embryo; it is just a �pre-embryo��and therefore it can be used in experimental research, aborted, or donated."

Fact 7: This "scientific" myth is perhaps the most common error, which pervades the current literature. The term "pre-embryo" has quite a long and interesting history. (See Irving and Kischer, The Human Development Hoax: Time To Tell The Truth!, for extensive details and references.) But it roughly goes back to at least 1979 in the bioethics writings of Jesuit theologian Richard McCormick in his work with the Ethics Advisory Board to the United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare,18 and those of frog developmental biologist Dr. Clifford Grobstein in a 1979 article in Scientific American,19 and most notably in his classic book, Science and the Unborn: Choosing Human Futures (1988).20 Both McCormick and Grobstein subsequently continued propagating this scientific myth as members of the Ethics Committee of the American Fertility Society, and in numerous influential bioethics articles, leading to its common use in bioethics, theological, and public policy literature to this day.

https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/wdhbb.html

I'm not going to "refute" all of this garbage, as most of it is opinion - but here is one for you:

Biologists from 1,058 academic institutions around the world assessed survey items on when a human's life begins and, overall, 96% (5337 out of 5577) affirmed the fertilization view.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36629778

So no, it is not a myth nor is it a fact that everyone agrees on your view.

Again, this is from a student run pro-life group. You should have known this from how many times things are stated as fact ("As demonstrated above") should give you pause.

Do you have anything not just directly copied from a pro-life site? Googling "best quotes about pro-life to destroy atheists" doesnt seem to be working for you.

The study you posted is discussing OPINIONS from Americans about when life begins, not scientific facts.

You posted something that supports my posts: 96% of biologists worldwide say life begins at fertilization. Can you not understand that biologists say life begins at fertilization?

OK, and? What does that have to do with anything? No one disagrees that cells start dividing after fertilization.

Cells? A human is a human throughout his or her entire life.

A human is a human at every stage of development. Every human goes through developmental stages and at every stage they are human.

People here work really hard to dehumanize humans, it’s scary. It’s also clear how Nazis were able to come to power. Dehumanizing humans was their specialty, and dcum posters are following right along. It’s really disgusting.

I lost the plot awhile ago. What does any of this stuff ^ have to do with Evangelization Vs. Proselytization?

OP tried to change the conversation after she realized she didn’t understand the definitions of those words.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is actually kind of hilarious, but the PP who posted all the garbage "quotes" about how life begins at conception is just a website "40 quotes from medical experts that prove human life starts at conception" None of which actually "prove" this, and many I cant even find actual quotes from, only the repeated spiel of this website "liveaction.org" citing some "science" from 1974! Are you joking bud?

Scientific" myths and scientific fact:

Given these basic facts of human embryology, it is easier to recognize the many scientifically inaccurate claims that have been advanced in the discussions about abortion, human embryo research, cloning, stem cell research, the formation of chimeras, and the use of abortifacients�and why these discussions obfuscate the objective scientific facts. The following is just a sampling of these current "scientific" myths.

Myth 1: "Prolifers claim that the abortion of a human embryo or a human fetus is wrong because it destroys human life. But human sperms and human ova are human life, too. So prolifers would also have to agree that the destruction of human sperms and human ova are no different from abortions�and that is ridiculous!"

Fact 1: As pointed out above in the background section, there is a radical difference, scientifically, between parts of a human being that only possess "human life" and a human embryo or human fetus that is an actual "human being." Abortion is the destruction of a human being. Destroying a human sperm or a human oocyte would not constitute abortion, since neither are human beings. The issue is not when does human life begin, but rather when does the life of every human being begin. A human kidney or liver, a human skin cell, a sperm or an oocyte all possess human life, but they are not human beings�they are only parts of a human being. If a single sperm or a single oocyte were implanted into a woman�s uterus, they would not grow; they would simply disintegrate.

Myth 2: "The product of fertilization is simply a �blob,� a �bunch of cells�, a �piece of the mother�s tissues�."

Fact 2: As demonstrated above, the human embryonic organism formed at fertilization is a whole human being, and therefore it is not just a "blob" or a "bunch of cells." This new human individual also has a mixture of both the mother�s and the father�s chromosomes, and therefore it is not just a "piece of the mother�s tissues". Quoting Carlson:

"... [T]hrough the mingling of maternal and paternal chromosomes, the zygote is a genetically unique product of chromosomal reassortment, which is important for the viability of any species."15 (Emphasis added.)

Myth 3: "The immediate product of fertilization is just a �potential� or a �possible� human being�not a real existing human being."

Fact 3: As demonstrated above, scientifically there is absolutely no question whatsoever that the immediate product of fertilization is a newly existing human being. A human zygote is a human being. It is not a "potential" or a "possible" human being. It�s an actual human being�with the potential to grow bigger and develop its capacities.

Myth 4: "A single-cell human zygote, or embryo, or fetus are not human beings, because they do not look like human beings."

Fact 4: As all human embryologists know, a single-cell human zygote, or a more developed human embryo, or human fetus is a human being�and that that�s the way they are supposed to look at those particular periods of development.

Myth 5: "The immediate product of fertilization is just an �it��it is neither a girl nor a boy."

Fact 5: The immediate product of fertilization is genetically already a girl or a boy�determined by the kind of sperm that fertilizes the oocyte. Quoting Carlson again:

"...[T]he sex of the future embryo is determined by the chromosomal complement of the spermatozoon. (If the sperm contains 22 autosomes and 2 X chromosomes, the embryo will be a genetic female, and if it contains 22 autosomes and an X and a Y chromosome, the embryo will be a genetic male.)"16

Myth 6: "The embryo and the embryonic period begin at implantation." (Alternative myths claim 14 days, or 3 weeks.)

Fact 6: These are a few of the most common myths perpetuated sometimes even within quasi-scientific articles�especially within the bioethics literature. As demonstrated above, the human embryo, who is a human being, begins at fertilization�not at implantation (about 5-7 days), 14-days, or 3 weeks. Thus the embryonic period also begins at fertilization, and ends by the end of the eighth week, when the fetal period begins. Quoting O�Rahilly:

"Prenatal life is conveniently divided into two phases: the embryonic and the fetal. The embryonic period proper during which the vast majority of the named structures of the body appear, occupies the first 8 postovulatory weeks. ... [T]he fetal period extends from 8 weeks to birth ..."17 (Emphasis added.)

Myth 7: "The product of fertilization, up to 14-days, is not an embryo; it is just a �pre-embryo��and therefore it can be used in experimental research, aborted, or donated."

Fact 7: This "scientific" myth is perhaps the most common error, which pervades the current literature. The term "pre-embryo" has quite a long and interesting history. (See Irving and Kischer, The Human Development Hoax: Time To Tell The Truth!, for extensive details and references.) But it roughly goes back to at least 1979 in the bioethics writings of Jesuit theologian Richard McCormick in his work with the Ethics Advisory Board to the United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare,18 and those of frog developmental biologist Dr. Clifford Grobstein in a 1979 article in Scientific American,19 and most notably in his classic book, Science and the Unborn: Choosing Human Futures (1988).20 Both McCormick and Grobstein subsequently continued propagating this scientific myth as members of the Ethics Committee of the American Fertility Society, and in numerous influential bioethics articles, leading to its common use in bioethics, theological, and public policy literature to this day.

https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/wdhbb.html

I'm not going to "refute" all of this garbage, as most of it is opinion - but here is one for you:

Biologists from 1,058 academic institutions around the world assessed survey items on when a human's life begins and, overall, 96% (5337 out of 5577) affirmed the fertilization view.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36629778

So no, it is not a myth nor is it a fact that everyone agrees on your view.

Again, this is from a student run pro-life group. You should have known this from how many times things are stated as fact ("As demonstrated above") should give you pause.

Do you have anything not just directly copied from a pro-life site? Googling "best quotes about pro-life to destroy atheists" doesnt seem to be working for you.

The study you posted is discussing OPINIONS from Americans about when life begins, not scientific facts.

You posted something that supports my posts: 96% of biologists worldwide say life begins at fertilization. Can you not understand that biologists say life begins at fertilization?

OK, and? What does that have to do with anything? No one disagrees that cells start dividing after fertilization.

Cells? A human is a human throughout his or her entire life.

A human is a human at every stage of development. Every human goes through developmental stages and at every stage they are human.

People here work really hard to dehumanize humans, it’s scary. It’s also clear how Nazis were able to come to power. Dehumanizing humans was their specialty, and dcum posters are following right along. It’s really disgusting.

“Life” at the earliest stages of human development is defined by cells dividing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is actually kind of hilarious, but the PP who posted all the garbage "quotes" about how life begins at conception is just a website "40 quotes from medical experts that prove human life starts at conception" None of which actually "prove" this, and many I cant even find actual quotes from, only the repeated spiel of this website "liveaction.org" citing some "science" from 1974! Are you joking bud?

Scientific" myths and scientific fact:

Given these basic facts of human embryology, it is easier to recognize the many scientifically inaccurate claims that have been advanced in the discussions about abortion, human embryo research, cloning, stem cell research, the formation of chimeras, and the use of abortifacients�and why these discussions obfuscate the objective scientific facts. The following is just a sampling of these current "scientific" myths.

Myth 1: "Prolifers claim that the abortion of a human embryo or a human fetus is wrong because it destroys human life. But human sperms and human ova are human life, too. So prolifers would also have to agree that the destruction of human sperms and human ova are no different from abortions�and that is ridiculous!"

Fact 1: As pointed out above in the background section, there is a radical difference, scientifically, between parts of a human being that only possess "human life" and a human embryo or human fetus that is an actual "human being." Abortion is the destruction of a human being. Destroying a human sperm or a human oocyte would not constitute abortion, since neither are human beings. The issue is not when does human life begin, but rather when does the life of every human being begin. A human kidney or liver, a human skin cell, a sperm or an oocyte all possess human life, but they are not human beings�they are only parts of a human being. If a single sperm or a single oocyte were implanted into a woman�s uterus, they would not grow; they would simply disintegrate.

Myth 2: "The product of fertilization is simply a �blob,� a �bunch of cells�, a �piece of the mother�s tissues�."

Fact 2: As demonstrated above, the human embryonic organism formed at fertilization is a whole human being, and therefore it is not just a "blob" or a "bunch of cells." This new human individual also has a mixture of both the mother�s and the father�s chromosomes, and therefore it is not just a "piece of the mother�s tissues". Quoting Carlson:

"... [T]hrough the mingling of maternal and paternal chromosomes, the zygote is a genetically unique product of chromosomal reassortment, which is important for the viability of any species."15 (Emphasis added.)

Myth 3: "The immediate product of fertilization is just a �potential� or a �possible� human being�not a real existing human being."

Fact 3: As demonstrated above, scientifically there is absolutely no question whatsoever that the immediate product of fertilization is a newly existing human being. A human zygote is a human being. It is not a "potential" or a "possible" human being. It�s an actual human being�with the potential to grow bigger and develop its capacities.

Myth 4: "A single-cell human zygote, or embryo, or fetus are not human beings, because they do not look like human beings."

Fact 4: As all human embryologists know, a single-cell human zygote, or a more developed human embryo, or human fetus is a human being�and that that�s the way they are supposed to look at those particular periods of development.

Myth 5: "The immediate product of fertilization is just an �it��it is neither a girl nor a boy."

Fact 5: The immediate product of fertilization is genetically already a girl or a boy�determined by the kind of sperm that fertilizes the oocyte. Quoting Carlson again:

"...[T]he sex of the future embryo is determined by the chromosomal complement of the spermatozoon. (If the sperm contains 22 autosomes and 2 X chromosomes, the embryo will be a genetic female, and if it contains 22 autosomes and an X and a Y chromosome, the embryo will be a genetic male.)"16

Myth 6: "The embryo and the embryonic period begin at implantation." (Alternative myths claim 14 days, or 3 weeks.)

Fact 6: These are a few of the most common myths perpetuated sometimes even within quasi-scientific articles�especially within the bioethics literature. As demonstrated above, the human embryo, who is a human being, begins at fertilization�not at implantation (about 5-7 days), 14-days, or 3 weeks. Thus the embryonic period also begins at fertilization, and ends by the end of the eighth week, when the fetal period begins. Quoting O�Rahilly:

"Prenatal life is conveniently divided into two phases: the embryonic and the fetal. The embryonic period proper during which the vast majority of the named structures of the body appear, occupies the first 8 postovulatory weeks. ... [T]he fetal period extends from 8 weeks to birth ..."17 (Emphasis added.)

Myth 7: "The product of fertilization, up to 14-days, is not an embryo; it is just a �pre-embryo��and therefore it can be used in experimental research, aborted, or donated."

Fact 7: This "scientific" myth is perhaps the most common error, which pervades the current literature. The term "pre-embryo" has quite a long and interesting history. (See Irving and Kischer, The Human Development Hoax: Time To Tell The Truth!, for extensive details and references.) But it roughly goes back to at least 1979 in the bioethics writings of Jesuit theologian Richard McCormick in his work with the Ethics Advisory Board to the United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare,18 and those of frog developmental biologist Dr. Clifford Grobstein in a 1979 article in Scientific American,19 and most notably in his classic book, Science and the Unborn: Choosing Human Futures (1988).20 Both McCormick and Grobstein subsequently continued propagating this scientific myth as members of the Ethics Committee of the American Fertility Society, and in numerous influential bioethics articles, leading to its common use in bioethics, theological, and public policy literature to this day.

https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/wdhbb.html

I'm not going to "refute" all of this garbage, as most of it is opinion - but here is one for you:

Biologists from 1,058 academic institutions around the world assessed survey items on when a human's life begins and, overall, 96% (5337 out of 5577) affirmed the fertilization view.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36629778

So no, it is not a myth nor is it a fact that everyone agrees on your view.

Again, this is from a student run pro-life group. You should have known this from how many times things are stated as fact ("As demonstrated above") should give you pause.

Do you have anything not just directly copied from a pro-life site? Googling "best quotes about pro-life to destroy atheists" doesnt seem to be working for you.

The study you posted is discussing OPINIONS from Americans about when life begins, not scientific facts.

You posted something that supports my posts: 96% of biologists worldwide say life begins at fertilization. Can you not understand that biologists say life begins at fertilization?

OK, and? What does that have to do with anything? No one disagrees that cells start dividing after fertilization.

Cells? A human is a human throughout his or her entire life.

A human is a human at every stage of development. Every human goes through developmental stages and at every stage they are human.

People here work really hard to dehumanize humans, it’s scary. It’s also clear how Nazis were able to come to power. Dehumanizing humans was their specialty, and dcum posters are following right along. It’s really disgusting.

I lost the plot awhile ago. What does any of this stuff ^ have to do with Evangelization Vs. Proselytization?

OP tried to change the conversation after she realized she didn’t understand the definitions of those words.

Oh, ok Thanks for the clarification. The title is very misleading considering the content of most of these posts

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is actually kind of hilarious, but the PP who posted all the garbage "quotes" about how life begins at conception is just a website "40 quotes from medical experts that prove human life starts at conception" None of which actually "prove" this, and many I cant even find actual quotes from, only the repeated spiel of this website "liveaction.org" citing some "science" from 1974! Are you joking bud?

Scientific" myths and scientific fact:

Given these basic facts of human embryology, it is easier to recognize the many scientifically inaccurate claims that have been advanced in the discussions about abortion, human embryo research, cloning, stem cell research, the formation of chimeras, and the use of abortifacients�and why these discussions obfuscate the objective scientific facts. The following is just a sampling of these current "scientific" myths.

Myth 1: "Prolifers claim that the abortion of a human embryo or a human fetus is wrong because it destroys human life. But human sperms and human ova are human life, too. So prolifers would also have to agree that the destruction of human sperms and human ova are no different from abortions�and that is ridiculous!"

Fact 1: As pointed out above in the background section, there is a radical difference, scientifically, between parts of a human being that only possess "human life" and a human embryo or human fetus that is an actual "human being." Abortion is the destruction of a human being. Destroying a human sperm or a human oocyte would not constitute abortion, since neither are human beings. The issue is not when does human life begin, but rather when does the life of every human being begin. A human kidney or liver, a human skin cell, a sperm or an oocyte all possess human life, but they are not human beings�they are only parts of a human being. If a single sperm or a single oocyte were implanted into a woman�s uterus, they would not grow; they would simply disintegrate.

Myth 2: "The product of fertilization is simply a �blob,� a �bunch of cells�, a �piece of the mother�s tissues�."

Fact 2: As demonstrated above, the human embryonic organism formed at fertilization is a whole human being, and therefore it is not just a "blob" or a "bunch of cells." This new human individual also has a mixture of both the mother�s and the father�s chromosomes, and therefore it is not just a "piece of the mother�s tissues". Quoting Carlson:

"... [T]hrough the mingling of maternal and paternal chromosomes, the zygote is a genetically unique product of chromosomal reassortment, which is important for the viability of any species."15 (Emphasis added.)

Myth 3: "The immediate product of fertilization is just a �potential� or a �possible� human being�not a real existing human being."

Fact 3: As demonstrated above, scientifically there is absolutely no question whatsoever that the immediate product of fertilization is a newly existing human being. A human zygote is a human being. It is not a "potential" or a "possible" human being. It�s an actual human being�with the potential to grow bigger and develop its capacities.

Myth 4: "A single-cell human zygote, or embryo, or fetus are not human beings, because they do not look like human beings."

Fact 4: As all human embryologists know, a single-cell human zygote, or a more developed human embryo, or human fetus is a human being�and that that�s the way they are supposed to look at those particular periods of development.

Myth 5: "The immediate product of fertilization is just an �it��it is neither a girl nor a boy."

Fact 5: The immediate product of fertilization is genetically already a girl or a boy�determined by the kind of sperm that fertilizes the oocyte. Quoting Carlson again:

"...[T]he sex of the future embryo is determined by the chromosomal complement of the spermatozoon. (If the sperm contains 22 autosomes and 2 X chromosomes, the embryo will be a genetic female, and if it contains 22 autosomes and an X and a Y chromosome, the embryo will be a genetic male.)"16

Myth 6: "The embryo and the embryonic period begin at implantation." (Alternative myths claim 14 days, or 3 weeks.)

Fact 6: These are a few of the most common myths perpetuated sometimes even within quasi-scientific articles�especially within the bioethics literature. As demonstrated above, the human embryo, who is a human being, begins at fertilization�not at implantation (about 5-7 days), 14-days, or 3 weeks. Thus the embryonic period also begins at fertilization, and ends by the end of the eighth week, when the fetal period begins. Quoting O�Rahilly:

"Prenatal life is conveniently divided into two phases: the embryonic and the fetal. The embryonic period proper during which the vast majority of the named structures of the body appear, occupies the first 8 postovulatory weeks. ... [T]he fetal period extends from 8 weeks to birth ..."17 (Emphasis added.)

Myth 7: "The product of fertilization, up to 14-days, is not an embryo; it is just a �pre-embryo��and therefore it can be used in experimental research, aborted, or donated."

Fact 7: This "scientific" myth is perhaps the most common error, which pervades the current literature. The term "pre-embryo" has quite a long and interesting history. (See Irving and Kischer, The Human Development Hoax: Time To Tell The Truth!, for extensive details and references.) But it roughly goes back to at least 1979 in the bioethics writings of Jesuit theologian Richard McCormick in his work with the Ethics Advisory Board to the United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare,18 and those of frog developmental biologist Dr. Clifford Grobstein in a 1979 article in Scientific American,19 and most notably in his classic book, Science and the Unborn: Choosing Human Futures (1988).20 Both McCormick and Grobstein subsequently continued propagating this scientific myth as members of the Ethics Committee of the American Fertility Society, and in numerous influential bioethics articles, leading to its common use in bioethics, theological, and public policy literature to this day.

https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/wdhbb.html

I'm not going to "refute" all of this garbage, as most of it is opinion - but here is one for you:

Biologists from 1,058 academic institutions around the world assessed survey items on when a human's life begins and, overall, 96% (5337 out of 5577) affirmed the fertilization view.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36629778

So no, it is not a myth nor is it a fact that everyone agrees on your view.

Again, this is from a student run pro-life group. You should have known this from how many times things are stated as fact ("As demonstrated above") should give you pause.

Do you have anything not just directly copied from a pro-life site? Googling "best quotes about pro-life to destroy atheists" doesnt seem to be working for you.

The study you posted is discussing OPINIONS from Americans about when life begins, not scientific facts.

You posted something that supports my posts: 96% of biologists worldwide say life begins at fertilization. Can you not understand that biologists say life begins at fertilization?

OK, and? What does that have to do with anything? No one disagrees that cells start dividing after fertilization.

Cells? A human is a human throughout his or her entire life.

A human is a human at every stage of development. Every human goes through developmental stages and at every stage they are human.

People here work really hard to dehumanize humans, it’s scary. It’s also clear how Nazis were able to come to power. Dehumanizing humans was their specialty, and dcum posters are following right along. It’s really disgusting.

“Life” at the earliest stages of human development is defined by cells dividing.

Maybe the title should be revised to "A tedious discourse on human biology" Or something along those lines?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is actually kind of hilarious, but the PP who posted all the garbage "quotes" about how life begins at conception is just a website "40 quotes from medical experts that prove human life starts at conception" None of which actually "prove" this, and many I cant even find actual quotes from, only the repeated spiel of this website "liveaction.org" citing some "science" from 1974! Are you joking bud?

Scientific" myths and scientific fact:

Given these basic facts of human embryology, it is easier to recognize the many scientifically inaccurate claims that have been advanced in the discussions about abortion, human embryo research, cloning, stem cell research, the formation of chimeras, and the use of abortifacients�and why these discussions obfuscate the objective scientific facts. The following is just a sampling of these current "scientific" myths.

Myth 1: "Prolifers claim that the abortion of a human embryo or a human fetus is wrong because it destroys human life. But human sperms and human ova are human life, too. So prolifers would also have to agree that the destruction of human sperms and human ova are no different from abortions�and that is ridiculous!"

Fact 1: As pointed out above in the background section, there is a radical difference, scientifically, between parts of a human being that only possess "human life" and a human embryo or human fetus that is an actual "human being." Abortion is the destruction of a human being. Destroying a human sperm or a human oocyte would not constitute abortion, since neither are human beings. The issue is not when does human life begin, but rather when does the life of every human being begin. A human kidney or liver, a human skin cell, a sperm or an oocyte all possess human life, but they are not human beings�they are only parts of a human being. If a single sperm or a single oocyte were implanted into a woman�s uterus, they would not grow; they would simply disintegrate.

Myth 2: "The product of fertilization is simply a �blob,� a �bunch of cells�, a �piece of the mother�s tissues�."

Fact 2: As demonstrated above, the human embryonic organism formed at fertilization is a whole human being, and therefore it is not just a "blob" or a "bunch of cells." This new human individual also has a mixture of both the mother�s and the father�s chromosomes, and therefore it is not just a "piece of the mother�s tissues". Quoting Carlson:

"... [T]hrough the mingling of maternal and paternal chromosomes, the zygote is a genetically unique product of chromosomal reassortment, which is important for the viability of any species."15 (Emphasis added.)

Myth 3: "The immediate product of fertilization is just a �potential� or a �possible� human being�not a real existing human being."

Fact 3: As demonstrated above, scientifically there is absolutely no question whatsoever that the immediate product of fertilization is a newly existing human being. A human zygote is a human being. It is not a "potential" or a "possible" human being. It�s an actual human being�with the potential to grow bigger and develop its capacities.

Myth 4: "A single-cell human zygote, or embryo, or fetus are not human beings, because they do not look like human beings."

Fact 4: As all human embryologists know, a single-cell human zygote, or a more developed human embryo, or human fetus is a human being�and that that�s the way they are supposed to look at those particular periods of development.

Myth 5: "The immediate product of fertilization is just an �it��it is neither a girl nor a boy."

Fact 5: The immediate product of fertilization is genetically already a girl or a boy�determined by the kind of sperm that fertilizes the oocyte. Quoting Carlson again:

"...[T]he sex of the future embryo is determined by the chromosomal complement of the spermatozoon. (If the sperm contains 22 autosomes and 2 X chromosomes, the embryo will be a genetic female, and if it contains 22 autosomes and an X and a Y chromosome, the embryo will be a genetic male.)"16

Myth 6: "The embryo and the embryonic period begin at implantation." (Alternative myths claim 14 days, or 3 weeks.)

Fact 6: These are a few of the most common myths perpetuated sometimes even within quasi-scientific articles�especially within the bioethics literature. As demonstrated above, the human embryo, who is a human being, begins at fertilization�not at implantation (about 5-7 days), 14-days, or 3 weeks. Thus the embryonic period also begins at fertilization, and ends by the end of the eighth week, when the fetal period begins. Quoting O�Rahilly:

"Prenatal life is conveniently divided into two phases: the embryonic and the fetal. The embryonic period proper during which the vast majority of the named structures of the body appear, occupies the first 8 postovulatory weeks. ... [T]he fetal period extends from 8 weeks to birth ..."17 (Emphasis added.)

Myth 7: "The product of fertilization, up to 14-days, is not an embryo; it is just a �pre-embryo��and therefore it can be used in experimental research, aborted, or donated."

Fact 7: This "scientific" myth is perhaps the most common error, which pervades the current literature. The term "pre-embryo" has quite a long and interesting history. (See Irving and Kischer, The Human Development Hoax: Time To Tell The Truth!, for extensive details and references.) But it roughly goes back to at least 1979 in the bioethics writings of Jesuit theologian Richard McCormick in his work with the Ethics Advisory Board to the United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare,18 and those of frog developmental biologist Dr. Clifford Grobstein in a 1979 article in Scientific American,19 and most notably in his classic book, Science and the Unborn: Choosing Human Futures (1988).20 Both McCormick and Grobstein subsequently continued propagating this scientific myth as members of the Ethics Committee of the American Fertility Society, and in numerous influential bioethics articles, leading to its common use in bioethics, theological, and public policy literature to this day.

https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/wdhbb.html

I'm not going to "refute" all of this garbage, as most of it is opinion - but here is one for you:

Biologists from 1,058 academic institutions around the world assessed survey items on when a human's life begins and, overall, 96% (5337 out of 5577) affirmed the fertilization view.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36629778

So no, it is not a myth nor is it a fact that everyone agrees on your view.

Again, this is from a student run pro-life group. You should have known this from how many times things are stated as fact ("As demonstrated above") should give you pause.

Do you have anything not just directly copied from a pro-life site? Googling "best quotes about pro-life to destroy atheists" doesnt seem to be working for you.

The study you posted is discussing OPINIONS from Americans about when life begins, not scientific facts.

You posted something that supports my posts: 96% of biologists worldwide say life begins at fertilization. Can you not understand that biologists say life begins at fertilization?

OK, and? What does that have to do with anything? No one disagrees that cells start dividing after fertilization.

Cells? A human is a human throughout his or her entire life.

A human is a human at every stage of development. Every human goes through developmental stages and at every stage they are human.

People here work really hard to dehumanize humans, it’s scary. It’s also clear how Nazis were able to come to power. Dehumanizing humans was their specialty, and dcum posters are following right along. It’s really disgusting.

“Life” at the earliest stages of human development is defined by cells dividing.

Maybe the title should be revised to "A tedious discourse on human biology" Or something along those lines?

Or “religious person trying to pass off their religious beliefs as ‘science’”.

[Anonymous]

...Jesus Christ was an actual man who walked the earth, is abundantly attested to in early historical sources, and is agreed upon to have existed by every historian, scholar, and academic in the Western world. If very basic facts are unknown- then much is unknown......

I can't get past this from the OP. There's probably more historical documentation/attestations regarding Zeus/Jupiter than there are for Jesus. There's lots of temples, inscriptions, miracles ascribed to him, etc.

I highly recommend content by scholar Dan McClellan who has 4 degrees in biblical studies and a man of faith. He has a special interest in calling out misinformation. https://www.youtube.com/@maklelan/featured

Most Religious Beliefs are Credences - this post is particularly relevant to the OP.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPsa5T1oC90

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

...Jesus Christ was an actual man who walked the earth, is abundantly attested to in early historical sources, and is agreed upon to have existed by every historian, scholar, and academic in the Western world. If very basic facts are unknown- then much is unknown......

I can't get past this from the OP. There's probably more historical documentation/attestations regarding Zeus/Jupiter than there are for Jesus. There's lots of temples, inscriptions, miracles ascribed to him, etc.

I highly recommend content by scholar Dan McClellan who has 4 degrees in biblical studies and a man of faith. He has a special interest in calling out misinformation. https://www.youtube.com/@maklelan/featured

Most Religious Beliefs are Credences - this post is particularly relevant to the OP.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPsa5T1oC90

DP. This isn’t a thread about the historicity of Jesus. We’ve had other threads on that, maybe dig them up. When you do, you’ll find a video of your bff Bart Ehrman saying that people who deny Jesus are amateurish", "wrong-headed", and "outlandish".

Clearly you’re just a troll trying to keep the thread going.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

...Jesus Christ was an actual man who walked the earth, is abundantly attested to in early historical sources, and is agreed upon to have existed by every historian, scholar, and academic in the Western world. If very basic facts are unknown- then much is unknown......

I can't get past this from the OP. There's probably more historical documentation/attestations regarding Zeus/Jupiter than there are for Jesus. There's lots of temples, inscriptions, miracles ascribed to him, etc.

I highly recommend content by scholar Dan McClellan who has 4 degrees in biblical studies and a man of faith. He has a special interest in calling out misinformation. https://www.youtube.com/@maklelan/featured

Most Religious Beliefs are Credences - this post is particularly relevant to the OP.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPsa5T1oC90

DP. This isn’t a thread about the historicity of Jesus. We’ve had other threads on that, maybe dig them up. When you do, you’ll find a video of your bff Bart Ehrman saying that people who deny Jesus are “amateurish", "wrong-headed", and "outlandish".

Clearly you’re just a troll trying to keep the thread going.

Correction: people who deny Jesus existed are “amateurish” etc.

You’re still a troll