Summations Only

This sunday in the Catholic church in the U.S. was Right to Life sunday calling attention to the U.S. Supreme Court descision Roe v. Wade that legalized abortion through the creation of a right right to privacy interpretation of the U.S. Constitution.
The Catholic chrurch's postion is that life begins at conception.Is there a medical- scientific postion on when human life begins? If so what evidence for that postion?I am not a scientist, but based upon my beliefs I concur with the church's postion. The Roe v. Wade decision medically is really not supported by any scientific evidence, just the belief of Justice Burger.

I am asking as to whether there is a scienctific definition of when human life begins.
In the U.S. the federal and State legislatures, if drafting a law as to what constitutes the crime of murder, will consult the scientific community in re the definition of human life.

I would think the time of conception is when the sperm and egg have combined to form 46 human chromosomes that are implanted in the uterus and the human embro is formed.

At conception when the egg and sperm form 46 human chromosomes and the embryo comes into existence.

Yes I do belive in a soul. I know of no physical evidence for a soul. A soul is a gift from God. It enters the human when the human becomes life. Am I wrong? Maybe. Are you wrong? Maybe. It just appears to me after living my life with a wonderful wife, loving children, a little girl who died in the womb at 7 months, and beautiful grandchildren, I don't want to error on the side of being wrong as to when life begins. I can't phantom ending a possible life that is conceived by the natural process of our evolutionary process.

Is it your moral viewpoint that until about a few years after birth it's ok for the "moral agent" the mother to terminate the "life" she gave birth to?

This is from the wiki link you citedThe Court later rejected Roe's trimester framework, while affirming Roe's central holding that a person has a right to abortion up until viability.[1] The Roe decision defined "viable" as being "potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid," adding that viability "is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks."[2]that is making a decision as to when life begins. If the court had ruled that life began at conception, it could not have allowed abortion. Your are dealing in semantics.

I don't attach any significance to chromosomes as life itself. I am saying that there is a point when life begins, and it appears the most logical point is when the new life has assumed all the necessary attributes to begin developing along the evolutinary pathway. So when life begins, It is my moral opinion that no one has the right to terminate that life.

Yes I believe in the existence of a soul. I think it is implanted in a human being when life begins.

One of my sources is Ernst Mayr "What Evolution is."p.106 "Each individual is a unique combination of the 2 sets of parental genes, and it is the phenotype, the product of the genotype (the recombined set of genes) that is ordinarily the natural target of selection...--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I donot say one life is worth more than another. I say all lifes are equal and no man has the right to terminate a life. It is quite a different situation from having a miscarriage to making the intentional decision to terminate a life no matter in what stage that life may be.

that for me is a difficult question. If a mother's life is in danger as a result of her pregancy that is not the same as a "mother" who terminates because of "social " reasons.

thank you for your empathy.
I have given my opinion as to when life begins. If in fact the evolutinary process has not begun, such as when the egg fertilized by the sperm has not implanted and begun to grow, that is nature, that is not an intentional act. If they did not begin the process of life then that was nature taking it's course. I believe the soul is placed in active life, whenever the Lord wishes.
So once life begins and the soul is in fact in the human being then the destruction is almost never acceptable. Remembering this is my "human" opinion. God knows.

That is not the same as abortion when a mother has the choice all to herself. First of all a mother choosing to smoke or drink ect. is not a intentional act to destroy her fetus. It may or may not happen and one cannot place absolute belief in studies such as what occurs when a pregnant women drinks or smokes.The question of whether a mother is morally obligated to sacrifice herself to preseve her fetus is difficult. What information does the mother have and how valid is it in re her health and the life of her child?
If you and your child were confronted by an armed violent criminal who told you one of must die from his or her hands, You would have to make the choice.
I would choose to allow my child to live.

If in fact the fetus has human life how is it different than the woman hosting the fetus? So the answer is yes. It seems pretty clear that there is quite a difference from a woman having a miscarriage and a woman having an abortion. Do you disagree? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------