A New When Does Life Begin Thought

1. 84

   GA Andersonposted 23 hours ago

   Brace yourselves. This is a Charlie Kirk argument, but it is not presented as an abortion argument or a pro-Kirk comment. It's simply a question. It is the first time I have heard this rationalization.
   
   The question of when life begins has been argued forever. Arguments about embryos, zygotes, and ability to survive without the womb are all subjective judgments, hence their arguability.
   
   Then I heard a new one—to me: DNA. In all these years I haven't faced this logic. So it is simply a non-pointed question.
   
   The concept came from a Kirk interview video found on social media.
   
   The logic:
   
   You are life, the life that is what the 'Begin" question asks.
   
   Your DNA says what you are.
   
   Individually, everyone (every DNA strand) is different, but collectively, everyone's DNA starts the same way at the same time.
   
   Is it true to say life can't start without DNA?
   Is it true that our DNA strand—the blueprint of our life, is created by the fertilization process?
   Is it fair to say that fertilization creates the "life" that we will become (the DNA strand) is a fact?
   
   GA

   replyreport
   1. 84

      Kathryn L Hillposted 20 hours agoin reply to this

      I believe the sperm and the egg come together in a flash of light.
      I have seen videos that were captured revealing this.
      It stands to reason that the soul of a person enters the union of the DNA process that begins right then and there.
      The soul itself guides the progression of its own development. Its quite a mystery and beyond our limited comprehension.
      It is science. Metaphysical forces are behind all science.
      Thank you for bringing this revelation here.

      replyreport
      1. 84

         GA Andersonposted 17 hours agoin reply to this

         I'll leave the metaphysical to you Kathryn, I'm thinking about the biological aspect. Is the biological reality that our DNA is formed by fertilization as factual as 2+2=4?
         
         If so, is it logical to say our individual DNA is the first sign of life?
         
         GA

         replyreport
         1. 84

            Kathryn L Hillposted 17 hours agoin reply to this

            ... where is it held? It has to be in the soul itself!

            replyreport
   2. 81

      Readmikenowposted 14 hours agoin reply to this

      GA,
      
      I believe as Charlie Kirk did in that life begins at conception.
      
      The minute you accept this as true then the reality of abortion is murder of an unborn child becomes a fact.

      replyreport
      1. 84

         GA Andersonposted 13 hours agoin reply to this

         Yeah but . . . The question wasn't about a religious belief. Its secular answer would support your belief if the completion of the biological creation of individual DNA is accepted as a fact, and, if it is logical to consider that creation the creation of life.
         
         A Cliff Notes version

         replyreport
         1. 84

            Kathryn L Hillposted 13 hours agoin reply to this

            is it logical to consider that creation
            
            the creation of life?
            
            Why say no?
            
            ... why act clueless?
            
            My answer to your question is YES

            replyreport
         2. 84

            GA Andersonposted 12 hours agoin reply to this

            Yeah but . . . The question wasn't about a religious belief. Even though its secular answer could support your belief, if the completion of the biological creation of individual DNA is accepted as a fact, and, if it is logical to consider that because your DNA creates everything about you, your life is your DNA and it started with a definable biological act. The creation of the DNA is the creation of life.
            
            A link to the interview would have helped, but the concept was more neutral without it.
            
            GA

            replyreport
         3. 71

            Ken Burgessposted 12 hours agoin reply to this

            Side note to your Cliff Notes... the knowledge of DNA and perhaps its meaning to life goes back as far back as we can trace... some believe.
            
            The Greek caduceus, also known as the staff of Hermes, is a symbol that has been used for thousands of years.
            
            It features two serpents intertwined around a staff with wings.
            
            The caduceus is also linked to the Roman god Mercury and is sometimes used as a symbol of medicine. Often confused with the Rod of Asclepius, which is the traditional symbol of medicine.
            
            Twisting serpents or spiral staircases in sites like Chichen Itza (Maya) or Shimao (ancient China) some suggest encode DNA... even back to Byzantium times I believe there is reference to the symbology... who knows what they knew... or didn't know... the book of Enoch hints at some genetic tinkering.
            
            This gets me thinking about the island people of Tanna, Vanuatu, who believed that American forces were gods due to the miraculous cargo they brought during World War II.
            
            They worshipped them, expecting them to return and bring them material goods. The "cargo cult" phenomenon, where indigenous people in the South Pacific developed a cult-like devotion to the goods and technology left behind by colonial forces.
            
            How would humans that are at a tribal stage deal with interacting with other humans as advanced or more advanced than we are today?  What would they record, how much of what they recorded would reach us thousands of years later?

            replyreport
            1. 71

               Ken Burgessposted 12 hours agoin reply to this

               I went and discussed it with Grok...
               
               Your question touches on two distinct realms: the biological role of DNA in human life and the metaphysical concept of a soul entering at conception. I’ll address each part separately, grounding the DNA discussion in science and approaching the soul question with philosophical and cultural considerations, as it lies outside empirical verification. I’ll keep it concise while respecting the complexity of the topic.
               
               DNA doesn’t encode consciousness, personality, or subjective experience directly. While genes influence brain structure and function (e.g., neurotransmitter production), the emergence of consciousness remains a scientific mystery, often called the "hard problem" (David Chalmers, 1995).
               
               [I myself wonder about this, being a father, I saw my kids develop their own personalities... as if they were pre-programmed, at a very early age before the environment they interacted with could really impact them]
               
               Biologically, human life is encoded in DNA in the sense that it provides the instructions for physical development and function. However, non-biological aspects (e.g., consciousness, culture) involve additional factors not directly encoded in DNA.
               
               Religious Views:
               Christianity: Some denominations (e.g., Catholicism) hold that the soul is infused at conception, based on texts like Psalm 139:13–16 ("You knit me together in my mother’s womb"). Others, like some Protestant groups, argue for later stages (e.g., "quickening" at ~16–20 weeks, historically tied to fetal movement).
               
               Judaism: Traditional views vary; some Talmudic sources suggest the soul enters at 40 days post-conception or at birth (based on Sanhedrin 91b), while others are less definitive.
               
               Islam: Many scholars believe the soul is breathed into the fetus at 120 days, per hadiths (e.g., Sahih al-Bukhari), though some allow for earlier.
               
               Hinduism/Buddhism: The soul (atman) may enter at conception or reincarnate later, depending on karma and cosmic timing, as described in texts like the Garuda Purana.
               
               Book of Enoch Context: As discussed earlier, Enoch’s Nephilim narrative doesn’t address souls explicitly but implies divine intervention in human creation, which some interpret as genetic or spiritual manipulation. It doesn’t specify conception as the moment of soul entry but reflects ancient views of divine agency in life’s origins.
               
               Philosophical Views:
               Dualists (e.g., Descartes) argue the soul is distinct from the body, potentially entering at conception or later, but offer no mechanism to pinpoint when.
               
               Materialists (e.g., Daniel Dennett) reject the soul as a non-physical entity, suggesting consciousness emerges from brain activity later in development (e.g., after neural networks form, ~20–24 weeks).
               
               Indigenous/Cultural Analogies:
               Your reference to the Tanna cargo cults illustrates how profound phenomena are interpreted through cultural lenses. Just as Tanna islanders mythologized technology as divine, ancient peoples might have framed conception as a sacred moment of soul infusion, without empirical evidence. Similarly, Enoch’s authors might have described life’s mysteries (e.g., heredity) as angelic acts, not scientific processes.
               
               Speculative Link: If one posits that a soul requires a biological vessel, conception is a logical moment for its entry, as it marks the start of a unique genetic code. However, this is a theological or philosophical stance, not a scientific one, with no way to assign probability.

               replyreport
            2. 84

               GA Andersonposted 84 minutes agoin reply to this

               I've seen the stuff you mention about DNA and early beliefs and symbolisms. My question isn't new. Even the context is the same as it was in those ancient times.
               
               It seems, as Wilderness pointed out, that my question assumed a foundation that wasn't defined: What "life" was I asking about?
               
               It has to boil down to species life. The DNA aspect doesn't seem relative to a cellular life definition — the one that is still undefined.
               
               GA

               replyreport
   3. 71

      Ken Burgessposted 13 hours agoin reply to this

      I got no clue... its a mystery beyond my ability to fathom.
      
      I can handle mysteries like the Pre-Younger Dryas civilization, spent the last couple of decades contemplating the evidence and listening to some of the best arguments for it.
      
      I can handle ideas like multiple dimensions that we can only glimpse through heavy use of psychedelic mushrooms under the right circumstances...the use of such greatly impacted and shaped many ancient civilizations, especially the likes of the Incas, Aztecs, Mayans...
      
      But when and how and why life begins... and what differentiates our consciousness from that of other living beings...
      
      I could go have a debate with Grok about it, but based on other conversations I have had with him, I doubt he has a better clue than I do...
      
      

      replyreport
   4. 83

      Sharlee01posted 12 hours agoin reply to this

      You presented factual science—the science of DNA. Science shows that the blueprint of a human being is present from the moment of fertilization, and it is a life.

      replyreport
2. 84

   Kathryn L Hillposted 20 hours ago

   To take it further:
   While watching Charle Kirk debating a young woman, what struck me is this realization:
   Young people are told that sex is a natural part of life. They can have sex whenever they choose. They use the birth control methods available and are quite knowledgeable in avoiding conception.
   
   Nevertheless, birth control methods sometimes fail, hard as they try to avoid unwanted pregnancy ... because they are not in the market for a baby yet.
   
   It is only logical to get rid of something they don't want.
   
   We must change our thinking regarding casual sex, hooking up, "loving the one your with." If we care about the psyches of young women, who suffer after an abortion, (whether they admit it or not,) society needs to agree to the concept and boundary of
   
                                        No Sex Before Marriage.
   
   In isolating the difficulty, sex has to do with love and love is very compelling when two people come together. However, and sadly, it can lead to murder ... (in more ways than one, as we have just seen with Charlie Kirk's confused shooter.)

   replyreport
   1. 84

      GA Andersonposted 17 hours agoin reply to this

      Nope, wrong direction.
      
      GA

      replyreport
      1. 84

         Kathryn L Hillposted 17 hours agoin reply to this

         I know. Oh well. It's a good direction, even though wrong.

         replyreport
3. 84

   Kathryn L Hillposted 12 hours ago

   "Is it (scientifically) true that our DNA strand—the blueprint of our life, is created by the fertilization process?" GA
   
   
   A devils advocate will demand proof for this line of thinking.
   Did scientists discover that DNA is created by the fertilization process?
   If so, how?
   
   If what you say is provable scientific reality, then abortion is murder, but, duh, we already knew that.
   
   Non-killing is non-violence.

   replyreport
   1. 84

      GA Andersonposted 3 hours agoin reply to this

      Yep, the "if so" was the question.
      
      GA

      replyreport
      1. 77

         wildernessposted 2 hours agoin reply to this

         Setting aside the question of when life begins (long before the DNA is created), it is true that DNA is the "blueprint" for the basic structure that it will become.  Only the basic structure, not the end result, for a thousand other things will provide input as well, ranging from a star 1,000 light years away that provided the gamma ray that changed the DNA to the mother snorting coke.
         
         I have worked with many blueprints in my work creating new buildings.  Not a single one of them was a building; they were only the instructions on how to make it.  Not one was made of concrete or wood, not one contained a door I could enter, not one had a roof.  They were not buildings; they were not even a perfect description of what would be created, for every workman on the task also had input.  Only the basic structure was in the blueprint, not the finished product.
         
         Neither is a strand of DNA, or the cell that contains it, a person.  It is alive, yes (so is a tree cell or a virus) but it is not the person it may (may!) become one day.

         replyreport
   2. 84

      GA Andersonposted 103 minutes agoin reply to this

      Yeah, but I'm leaving the devil, and all his advocates out of the question and defining it (the question) as relating to a biological action.
      
      GA

      replyreport
4. 77

   wildernessposted 12 hours ago

   Is a haploid, an egg or sperm -  a cell with half the chromosomes - alive?  By all definitions, yes.  Is it a human being, a person?  By all definitions, no.  Charlie's definition, used to deny abortion of a living "creature" is worthless, for other cells are alive but not human.  "Life" started long before conception with the creation of those haploid cells.

   replyreport
   1. 84

      GA Andersonposted 2 hours agoin reply to this

      Hell's bells Wilderness. Zygots was bad enough, and now we have "haploids" too.
      
      Your question has to come before mine: What "life" are we talking about? Species life or cellular life? My mind was thinking about species' life.
      
      Look at the rabbit hole that sends us down: Your haploids don't seem to be origins of life because they originate from life (a developed organism).
      
      I think the question (et al) has to be asking about species' life, complex life, not single-cell organisms. Is that too arbitrarily restricting? It might be, but for the context of the question, it seems fair and logical.
      
      GA

      replyreport