Do fertilized eggs go to heaven?

[gustava]

And when does God implant the soul?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/07/2 ... -to-heaven

:cray-cray:

[Chowder Head]

Absolutely brilliant.

[NotALoserLikeYou]

Well, if you're a Calvinist you believe only the elect eggs go to heaven.

[docmom]

"It makes me wonder if all this fuss isn't really about fertilized eggs at all, and maybe it's really about certain people wanting to be the boss of me."

AMEN, sister!

I LOVE the argument that we're actually decreasing deaths by using contraception because if you believe life begins at conception, then this is true!

[Coco]

ooooh snap! Natural family planning (the rhythm method) kills more fertilized eggs than birth control that limits ovulation.

[It'sFunToRun]

"It makes me wonder if all this fuss isn't really about fertilized eggs at all, and maybe it's really about certain people wanting to be the boss of me."

AMEN, sister!

I LOVE the argument that we're actually decreasing deaths by using contraception because if you believe life begins at conception, then this is true!

A Fundy would just reply that while it's okay for the lord to kill, man is not allowed to do so. Possibly add some babble about everything the lord makes having a purpose, and if the lord decides to call a fertilized egg to him before it even makes it to the zygote stage, then clearly that little soul was so lofty that it was able to accomplish its purpose within mere hours/days of existence. Possibly a suggestion that maybe the purpose of that soul was to bring people to the lord or turn them away from the sin of abortion.

[It'sFunToRun]

Just wanted to add that in my previous post I said "A Fundy would say", but regular conservative Christians, like the ones I spent A LOT of time around growing up, would say that too, one need not be Fundy.

[salex]

Re: Do fertilized eggs go to heaven? First answer popped in head was "who cares" but apparently people who want to run women's lives care.

So I went with what I've long believed.

No.

Because Genisis 2:7

And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Must have a breath.....

yes, God knew you as you were knitted in the womb.... but the living soul comes with breath...

[Coco]

Exactly what Salex said...there's the breath of life... that seems like when God would put the soul in. i know that definition could be used to defend late abortions, but honestly if a fetus can't survive on its own is it truly a separate person yet? I'm all about protecting life past a certain stage and supporting welfare to give unplanned and disadvantaged kids a good start, but Is it logical to call the components of a potential person a person if it isn't attached to the placenta - the life giving nutrients source? Those early days when it's just a fertilized egg with rare odds of attaching, and when the morning after pill or the birth control pill would make the uterus incompatible to pregnancy. (Sorry to blab about this so much but it's a big deal to me because i'm living it... we can't afford sterilization yet but i can't handle more kids or another pregnancy, just being honest.)

And someone else commented on that web site that the sperm and egg actually morphs into the placenta first, which then produces the brain, physical structure, etc... it's interesting to look up images of very early pregnancy. You can tell which ones are made by anti-choice advocates, and which are more scientific. Both times i was preg i borrowed "A Child is Born" to track the growth from the library and it seemed to take forever before the embryo started to look like an actual baby. At the OB-GYN office they showed us the the plastic versions of where your baby is at, and honestly they aren't those cute tiny doll memes going around on facebook. More like a blobby alien look.

Week 4 of Pregnancy: Development of the Embryo and Placenta

Your little ball of cells is splitting into two groups this week. One will become your son or daughter (embryo) while the other becomes the placenta — the lifeline that channels nutrients to your baby and carries waste away.

[Mama Mia]

ooooh snap! Natural family planning (the rhythm method) kills more fertilized eggs than birth control that limits ovulation.

Ummm......what? If you're doing NFP right the eggs and sperm aren't meeting each other at all, so aren't getting fertilized, that's the whole point. I'm confused. :?

[It'sFunToRun]

Re: Do fertilized eggs go to heaven? First answer popped in head was "who cares" but apparently people who want to run women's lives care.

So I went with what I've long believed.

No.

Because Genisis 2:7

And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Must have a breath.....

yes, God knew you as you were knitted in the womb.... but the living soul comes with breath...

Also, from the verse you quoted, it definitely sounds like the thing must have nostrils, at least, to be considered alive. I'm not sure at which week that happens, but I'd guess not before ten.

[salex]

To me, this is more or less how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, anyway.

[Trynn]

God eats fertilized eggs for breakfast in heaven, so yes, fertilized eggs DEFINITELY go to heaven.

[Coco]

Ummm......what? If you're doing NFP right the eggs and sperm aren't meeting each other at all, so aren't getting fertilized, that's the whole point. I'm confused. :?

i'm confused too, :lol: i've never completely understood NFP. But from the article (which made that statement i put in my comment) i'm guessing the author thought NFP resulted in a fertilized egg too late in the cycle, like right before a period.

[Mama Mia]

i'm confused too, :lol: i've never completely understood NFP. But from the article (which made that statement i put in my comment) i'm guessing the author thought NFP resulted in a fertilized egg too late in the cycle, like right before a period.

Yeah I finally read the links at the bottom, the math seemed more than a little bit geared to try to prove their point, not so much on anything logical, at least regarding the NFP.

Actually the whole thing read like a Ken wall-o-text of statistics soup.

[scc12]

I've never thought that a soul will walk up to someone in heaven and say, "Hi.I'm from cycle no. 436.I know you didn't realize you were even pregnant,but,here I am....surprise!" LOL

[It'sFunToRun]

Also there's something in the old testament about until forty days being "mere water".

[slickcat79]

NFP has a much higher failure rate than using hormonal BC to prevent ovulation. You are much more likely to produce a fertilized egg using NFP than to have breakthrough ovulation on BC. Thus it's more likely the egg will fail to implant or be miscarried. But in an ideal world, the likelihood of either one would be very small.

The idea that "life begins at fertilization" is just anti-choice rhetoric anyway. You will never find anyone who can resolve the implications of "personhood from conception" in any logical way.

[Laurabelle]

Exactly what Salex said...there's the breath of life... that seems like when God would put the soul in. i know that definition could be used to defend late abortions, but honestly if a fetus can't survive on its own is it truly a separate person yet? I'm all about protecting life past a certain stage and supporting welfare to give unplanned and disadvantaged kids a good start, but Is it logical to call the components of a potential person a person if it isn't attached to the placenta - the life giving nutrients source? Those early days when it's just a fertilized egg with rare odds of attaching, and when the morning after pill or the birth control pill would make the uterus incompatible to pregnancy. (Sorry to blab about this so much but it's a big deal to me because i'm living it... we can't afford sterilization yet but i can't handle more kids or another pregnancy, just being honest.)

Forgive me, but the writing tutor in me has to question the logic behind the bolded. I get what you're saying, but a newborn baby arguably cannot survive on its own either...(and I'm pretty sure most people would agree a baby is a “separate†human being…)

[ILoveJellybeans]

Forgive me, but the writing tutor in me has to question the logic behind the bolded. I get what you're saying, but a newborn baby arguably cannot survive on its own either...(and I'm pretty sure most people would agree a baby is a “separate†human being…)

The difference is that although a baby cannot survive on its own as it does not have the motor skills to feed, bathe, clothe and look after itself, a baby is not dependent on just one person (the mother) to do these things. Babies can be given up for adoption and raised by other people, as well as the mother being able to have other people help out such as the father, grandparents, babysitters, nannies...but as a fetus it is incapable of survival outside of the uterus. There is only one person who can care for a fetus, and that is the woman whose uterus it resides in. You cant implant a fetus into an artificial uterus or into someone elses. You cant pass your bump to a babysitter while you go out and do stuff youre not allowed to while pregnant (but seriously, it would be awesome if that could happen).

[It'sFunToRun]

Forgive me, but the writing tutor in me has to question the logic behind the bolded. I get what you're saying, but a newborn baby arguably cannot survive on its own either...(and I'm pretty sure most people would agree a baby is a “separate†human being…)

Once the baby is born there are literally thousands of people who would be willing and happy to take care of it, so the mother would have to do nothing if she wished. When the mother is pregnant, say four months, even though many people would adopt her baby, without leeching off of one specific and possibly unwilling person's nutrients, the fetus will die. I think this is the crux of the argument.

[Laurabelle]

Once the baby is born there are literally thousands of people who would be willing and happy to take care of it, so the mother would have to do nothing if she wished. When the mother is pregnant, say four months, even though many people would adopt her baby, without leeching off of one specific and possibly unwilling person's nutrients, the fetus will die. I think this is the crux of the argument.

True, and I get that. I guess it was just the "on its own" part that was not quite right to me. Someone trying to play devil's advocate (not me of course! :liar: :snooty: ) could say that after the baby is born, someone(s) is/are helping it still...just in a different way. I do get the point of the argument, though. Just being nit picky. :shrug:

[slickcat79]

Forgive me, but the writing tutor in me has to question the logic behind the bolded. I get what you're saying, but a newborn baby arguably cannot survive on its own either...(and I'm pretty sure most people would agree a baby is a “separate†human being…)

Sure it can. Virtually no baby has another person with it 24/7. It doesn't need to be attached to another person to breathe and circulate its blood. If you leave it alone in a room for hours (even days), it will survive until it is too hungry and/or dehydrated for its body to continue funtioning, just like any other person. You can't turn off a fetus' life support (the mother) and expect it to continue to live for more than a few minutes.

[Coco]

True, and I get that. I guess it was just the "on its own" part that was not quite right to me. Someone trying to play devil's advocate (not me of course! :liar: :snooty: ) could say that after the baby is born, someone(s) is/are helping it still...just in a different way. I do get the point of the argument, though. Just being nit picky. :shrug:

Sorry about the confusion, I'm not very skilled at writing out my opinions. I'd never make a good lawyer. :lol:

I'm glad you caught what i meant though, that a developing baby up to a certain point MUST depend on the body of the mother as a life-sustaining part of its own being.

[Childless]

There's a difference between being dependent on another person and being parasitic.