| It certainly isn't the case that I don't like opposing viewpoints. We have them all the time. In fact, the caller knew that he was put at the head of the line because his viewpoint opposed mine. I enjoy callers with opposing viewpoints. But let me respond to him and to what he called the "epitome of my own bologna."
You challenged my background and qualifications. My point was that you certainly don't have to have a degree in order to speak accurately or in an educated manner on a particular issue. Your case is a case in point. You are talking about the beginning of life, but you have an engineering degree. You could even be a biologist and have a bad opinion about something, and in this particular case you are just simply mistaken about the issue of life and biology. It isn't because you have an engineering degree and not a degree in biology; it just means that your facts are mistaken in this case. I mentioned that you were simply uninformed, and I am sorry if that hurt your feelings, I didn't mean it to. But it was the nicest way that I could say that you were genuinely and truly mistaken.
I will explain the reasons why I hold my opinion since you didn't give me a chance a few moments ago.
In some of your studies you might have heard about some gentlemen named Spallanzani, Louis Pasteur, or Reddy. These were nineteenth century scientists who developed a notion called the Law of Biogenesis. It's a very well-established law. You can look in any biology textbook. Look up these men and you will find the information about the Law of Biogenesis.
Now, the Law of Biogenesis said two things. It said that life comes from life; it does not come from non-life. And each being reproduces after its own kind. Those are the two principle aspects of the Law of Biogenesis.
How does that relate to the question of the unborn child? You questioned whether an unborn child is really a living human being. You asked, "How do you know when life begins?" You used the illustration of memories. You don't remember anything of when you were a fetus. This memory reference doesn't work at all, Dan, and you should know better.
Though you don't remember anything as a fetus, you probably don't remember anything of your first day of life.
Frankly, I don't remember anything until my second birthday. Then I was playing in the driveway when a truck backed over me and broke my legs. That's my first memory, but does that mean that because I couldn't remember the first two years of my life that I wasn't a human being during those first two years? No, not at all. So, memory has nothing to do with it.
The question is: What kind of being is the unborn child? There is something in there. If you would have stayed on the phone I would have asked you a series of questions that I think would have made the point--not to beat you up, but to get to the truth of the matter. Clearly what is in there is alive, it is not dead. So the question of when life begins is kind of a non- question because there is no end of life. Mom and Dad get together. One contributes a sperm, the other an egg. Both the sperm and the egg are alive. The sperm and egg get together and form a zygote. The zygote is alive. There is no death at any point. There is continuous life from beginning to end, so the question isn't when does a thing become alive. There is life throughout. We know that that is the case. The question is: When does a new individual being come into existence?
The question isn't when does a thing become alive. There is life throughout. We know that that is the case. The question is: When does a new individual being come into existence?
This always happens at the point of fertilization because at the point of fertilization something remarkable takes place. In the case of human beings, an egg with 23 chromosomes unites with a sperm with 23 chromosomes and creates a zygote with--guess what--46 chromosomes. Not all the chromosomes of the mother, not all the chromosomes of the father, but a unique chromosomal match. In other words, at that point, by scientific assessment, we have a living thing that does not have the chromosomal makeup of either of his parents, but a combination of the two. In other words, it has its own unique chromosomal pattern of 46 chromosomes that are its own as a living being. That's how we know the zygote is not mom and is not dad. It is something different and it is alive. If it is alive, and it is not mom and is not dad, it must be a separate organism--living in mom, sure enough, but a separate living entity. It is a living being.
So it is always alive. Sperm and egg are alive. The zygote is alive. But the zygote is not the same as the sperm and the egg. That is why every single biological textbook that deals with the origin of life, the beginning of biological life, will identify the beginning of individual life at the time of conception. That's when individual life does begin for these reasons.
It ties in with Spallanzani, Pasteur, and Reddy's work in this regard. They said that all life comes from life and all life reproduces after its own kind. Mommy and Daddy are human beings. They reproduce another individual thing. It is a living being. The question is what kind of being is it? Answer: According to the Law of Biogenesis, it is a human being. Why? Because Mom and Dad can't produce any other kind of being.
My point is simply this. It doesn't matter whether I have degrees in biology or not. What matters is the accuracy of my statements. I've gone very, very carefully to demonstrate by using biology, laws of science, and some fairly straight-forward common-sense, to point out that an unborn child at every stage of its development is a separate individual human being from its parents, even though it is domiciled in its mother.
Now the question becomes, how do we treat human beings? If we are poor, do we kill human beings so they don't strain our economy?
If we are poor, do we kill human beings so they don't strain our economy?
You said, "Why don't you believe in birth control and stuff like that? Well, I personally believe in contraception. I believe in population control. But the question is, how do we control the population? Is it legitimate for us to kill existing human beings to control the population? My response is no.
We have a moral obligation to care for existing human beings as best we can when they are here. Before they are here we can prevent them from coming into existence, but once they are in existence--whether they are a two- year-old child or a two-day-old zygote--we still have a living human being that has value in God's eyes. Therefore, we have a responsibility to protect them.
No, it's not Hitlerian to say that we ought to protect innocent human beings. As a matter of fact, Hitler said quite the opposite. In fact, Hitler said what you are saying: There are human beings who have lives that are not worthy of being lived. Hitler said that people who are in the way, and who are awkward, and who are expensive ought to be exterminated. That sounds to me, when you really get down to it, what you are advocating. I have to disagree with that. | 
