Life Begins at Conception

[Levite]

Not that I believe the Bible or any other scripture should have any influence whatsoever on the secular law of our secular country, but....

No. There is no Biblical basis for the belief that life begins at conception. There are those who have cited Jeremiah 1 as such a basis, but the plurality of Jewish commentators, at least, have agreed that Jeremiah is speaking poetically here, and is not making a statement of legal fact.

There is no definitive answer in the Jewish tradition for when life does begin, however the prevailing opinion, up until quite recently, was dependent not upon the Bible but upon the Talmud, wherein we are taught that "Until the 40th day of pregnancy, it is merely fluid in the womb." (BT Yevamot 69b, for those of you keeping track; there is also a general principle cited in BT Gittin 23a, Ubar yerekh imo hu "the fetus is like one of the mother's limbs," ). The "40th day" mentioned is not actually from conception (which in those days they would have been unable to pinpoint) but from the date of the woman's first missed period, which would be at minimum two weeks or so after conception; thus all would agree that for the first seven weeks or so of pregnancy, there is nothing to even questionably call "alive."

After that point, opinions differ, but the Jewish legal tradition is always firm that, in any situation wherein pregnancy presents a danger to the mother's health, her life takes precedence over the fetus, and it must be removed in whatever way is most convenient. That principle holds true until the actual moment of birth, and the emergence of the baby's head from the birth canal. Is the fetus "alive" between week eight and the end of pregnancy? Depends on whom you ask. But there is certainly plenty of ground in the Jewish tradition to say "no," and even more solid ground to say "maybe, but not like a full person."

But certainly in the Bible, there is nothing.

 

[Baydwin]

Psalms 139:16
Your eyes saw even the embryo of me,
And in your book all its parts were down in writing,
As regards the days when they were formed
And there was not yet one among them.

So an embryo is classed as a person because God already knows that being even as an embryo.

Ever heard the expression that if you kill one man you kill an entire nation? I can't remember where the quote came from unfortunately, but essentially it means that when you kill a person you kill all the possible children that person may have had, should he have lived.

It's why I find it interesting that many pro-lifers are also pro-death penalty. They're happy to kill thousands of potential human beings by supporting capital punishment, but have different standards when it comes to a single potential life.
Not that I'm saying you support capital punishment lockyfan (though you may for all I know), you're post just reminded me of the quote.

 

[Walkntune]

I love how people pro-lifers always cry out "Oh, the rights of the baby, the rights of the baby" etc, etc. But if everyone really cared so much about rights, rather than shoving their ignorant, holier than though bigotry down everyone else's throat, then where, is Isis' name, are the rights of the mother?

She decides she wants to have an abortion and suddenly she is no longer human and therefore no longer has any rights?

So you consider taking another's life a right?
If someone sneaks into a delivery room and jab a sharp object into the baby being delivered and kill it before it is completely delivered or the head comes out should they be charged with murder?

 

[no-body]

Psalms 139:16
Your eyes saw even the embryo of me,
And in your book all its parts were down in writing,
As regards the days when they were formed
And there was not yet one among them.

So an embryo is classed as a person because God already knows that being even as an embryo.

The only translation that uses "embryo" is the Jehovah Witness version of the bible it's really a stretch to say that the persons who wrote it meant embryo when they wrote "unformed substance"

 

[Levite]

RE: Ps. 139:16

The Hebrew word golmi, from the root gimel-lamed-mem (g.l.m.) literally means "material kneaded together," and is a common poetic term in ancient Hebrew for crude material prior to formation by an artist. When applied to a human being, it is a poetic term for the body prior to God's implacement of the soul within it. It does not literally mean an embryo or fetus.

Likewise, I believe there have been some citations of other verses in Psalms that use phrases like "from my birth," or "since my mother conceived me." It should be understood that Psalms is poetry. It uses poetic language, not intended to be taken literally. To attempt to take verses in Psalms as any kind of authoritative statements on practice and theology is like a geophysicist quoting Frosts "Fire and Ice," where he says "Some say the world will end in fire,/Some say in ice./From what I've tasted of desire/I hold with those who favor fire." and to make of that a determination that Frost clearly believes that tectonic instabilities resulting in runaway volcanic eruptions will imminently be the end fate of the planet, and thus we should plan accordingly, rather than entertain possibilities of another ice age or a global cooling trend. It's a poem. You can't take it literally.

Finally, I noted that at least one person misunderstood Ex. 21:22-23. This is often mistranslated. What it actually says is that if two men are fighting, and in the scuffle, a pregnant woman is struck causing her a miscarriage, whoever struck her must pay her husband damages; but if the woman suffers permanent harm, then whoever struck her is liable for capital retribution under the lex talionis. It is actually much more supportive of the notion that Israelite Jews did not believe that life began prior to birth, much less at conception. The one who causes a miscarriage is fined, as though he caused damage to property; it is only if the woman has suffered further harm that the law reacts to the striker as though he is culpable for personal injury.

 

[logician]

Only the woman in question should determine whether she should have an abortion according to her own beliefs, not the church down the street, or a nanny state.

 

[DarkSun]

Only the woman in question should determine whether she should have an abortion according to her own beliefs, not the church down the street, or a nanny state.

I disagree that it's only the woman's choice.

No, you haven't.

You've covered the "a fertilized egg is a combination of gametes" part quite a bit, but you haven't covered the "...and this implies the fertilized egg is a person because of ______" part at all.

Neither could a fertlized egg, on its own.
And the two gametes together do not have the potential to become human unless the morula/blastocyst implants itself on the uterine wall. It appears "merged gametes" aren't sufficient for a person to occur.

Countless other things have to happen over the course of the pregnancy for the embryo/fetus to develop into a person. There are many, many things like hormonal inputs from the mother (as well as the input of basic oxygen and nutrients) that are needed but not present in that initial fertilized egg.

It implies that the fertilised egg is human because it has the full human genome, and under normal circumstances, would otherwise develop into a human life.

A gamete and an egg do not have either of these qualities until conception.

Maybe you could administer a fetal EEG and see the fetus' response to stimuli to see whether they're aware, as these researchers did with sheep fetuses:

http://altweb.jhsph.edu/bin/g/y/paper79.pdf

I disagree that the awareness of the fetus implies human life, now.

Hypothetical question: say a flying saucer lands and aliens come out. You talk to them and find out that they think, feel emotions, have intelligence, and in every practical way act like people. However, when scientists examine them, they find that these aliens have completely different physiologies from us: they have no discernable heart, neurological function, gender charateristics or any of the other items you listed.

Would you consider these aliens "persons"? If not, why not?

I would not consider them human, but yes, I would consider them human-like enough to be treated well.

That, or you could honestly ask yourself what qualities of an individual warrant them being valued as a person? Speaking for myself, it's not a heartbeat, neurological function, "obvious gender characteristics" or any of the other things you mentioned. These are all certainly present in living human beings, but they aren't what makes a person a person.

Look, everything you're saying is completely logical. Perhaps the problem is that I'm using emotional-baggage arguments. I just wouldn't have wanted to have been aborted myself. I would have seen that as my murder. So I'm going to apply that to every other fetus. The way I see it, the only one who should decide whether to end someone's life, is that person themselves.

You can say that a fetus isn't a human life. But I honestly cannot wrap my head around how it couldn't be. You're probably asking: "If it's a human life, then why?". Instead, I'm thinking more along the lines of: "If it's not a human life, then why?" IMO, there's a huge difference. I can't think of a single reason that a fetus would be different from a newborn with respect to being human. Awareness, gender traits and heartbeat aren't qualities that differentiate between living and non-living, so from that, the only conclusion is that the fetus is no different from the newborn.

I could say that neurological activity separates a newborn from a fetus, and then that the newborn with higher cognitive skills is human as a result. But if that were so, then newborns born with cognitive impairments are less human than those without, while infants that go into comas would be subhuman as well. So the logic doesn't fit that cognitive awareness implies life. If it did, then think of all the otherwise normal people that you're calling subhuman.

And neither does it make sense that heartbeat or obvious gender traits denote life, for similar reasons. Just because someone is born transgender or born with abnormal cardiac function doesn't make them less human. So again, these factors don't differentiate life from non-life. No, I'm not using an appeal to the consequence fallacy. I'm just pointing out that a newborn child is not inhuman if he/she is in a coma, or because he/she is trangender. Therefore, the premise that "normal human-traits implies a human life" is false.

So with regard to characteristics that differentiate something that is human from something that's not... I can't see how the fetus is any different from the newborn. From that we can make one of two conclusions... either the fetus and the newborn are inhuman at the same time... or the fetus and the newborn are both human for some unknown reason. Intuitively, to me, the idea that the newborn and the fetus are BOTH not human makes no sense whatsoever. So unless you can provide me with a reason that the newborn is more human than the fetus... then it looks like I'm going to be a bit stuck understanding your viewpoint.

What do you think? Do you disagree?

 

[Tiapan]

As I understand it the human birth is always premature, an evolutionary adaption because to go full term would result in a head size that will not fit down the birth canal, this is why human children require so much attention post partum. They dont stand up and start eating like most other animals would. This brings into question sentience the concept of self awareness which does not develop until well after birth.

Further, whilst fertilization gives a full set of genes and the bastula develops many of the daughter cells do not become "human" they instead develop into the placenta and umbilical cord and are later discarded.

Food for thought

Cheers

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It implies that the fertilised egg is human because it has the full human genome, and under normal circumstances, would otherwise develop into a human life.

I don't personally think that implantation is certain enough to be considered "normal". The woman's body does some pretty extraordinary things during pregnancy to bring the embryo/fetus to term. It's not like the embryo just needs a quiet warm place to do its own thing.

But just to back up a bit:

- almost every cell in our bodies carries the "full human genome". By itself, this doesn't make abortion any more objectionable than a haircut.

- when you say that something will develop into a human life, this implies that it is not yet a human life.

A gamete and an egg do not have either of these qualities until conception.

Sure they do. Leave sperm and egg in close proximity and they'll "normally" develop into a baby with only a few more steps than a fertilized egg or a zygote.

And when you take the sperm and egg together, you have a full human genome. It may be divided for the time being, but all the DNA is still there.

I would not consider them human, but yes, I would consider them human-like enough to be treated well.

Okay... on what basis?

Bonus question: why not apply that basis to humans as well, instead of appealing to quirks of our physiology?

Look, everything you're saying is completely logical. Perhaps the problem is that I'm using emotional-baggage arguments.

Heh... you said it, not me.

I just wouldn't have wanted to have been aborted myself. I would have seen that as my murder. So I'm going to apply that to every other fetus. The way I see it, the only one who should decide whether to end someone's life, is that person themselves.

Here's the thing, though: IMO, if the embryo or fetus that became you had been aborted, it wouldn't have been you that was aborted.

What makes you "you"? What parts of you would have to disappear before you'd consider yourself to no longer be the person you are now? Whatever you come up with, I'd bet dollars to donuts that none of these key traits were present when "you" were a morula, for instance.

You can say that a fetus isn't a human life. But I honestly cannot wrap my head around how it couldn't be. You're probably asking: "If it's a human life, then why?". Instead, I'm thinking more along the lines of: "If it's not a human life, then why?" IMO, there's a huge difference.

Actually, I'm thinking more along the lines of "what is it that makes a person a person, and when are these things present in human beings?

I can't think of a single reason that a fetus would be different from a newborn with respect to being human. Awareness, gender traits and heartbeat aren't qualities that differentiate between living and non-living, so from that, the only conclusion is that the fetus is no different from the newborn.

Heh... of course they're different; you just listed off differences.

Try looking at it another way: what about when we look at things in terms of values? What is it that you think makes a human life valuable? What is it about a person that makes their life more important than that of, say, a plant, bacterium, or a mouse?

I could say that neurological activity separates a newborn from a fetus, and then that the newborn with higher cognitive skills is human as a result. But if that were so, then newborns born with cognitive impairments are less human than those without, while infants that go into comas would be subhuman as well. So the logic doesn't fit that cognitive awareness implies life. If it did, then think of all the otherwise normal people that you're calling subhuman.

And neither does it make sense that heartbeat or obvious gender traits denote life, for similar reasons. Just because someone is born transgender or born with abnormal cardiac function doesn't make them less human. So again, these factors don't differentiate life from non-life. No, I'm not using an appeal to the consequence fallacy. I'm just pointing out that a newborn child is not inhuman if he/she is in a coma, or because he/she is trangender. Therefore, the premise that "normal human-traits implies a human life" is false.

So with regard to characteristics that differentiate something that is human from something that's not... I can't see how the fetus is any different from the newborn. From that we can make one of two conclusions... either the fetus and the newborn are inhuman at the same time... or the fetus and the newborn are both human for some unknown reason. Intuitively, to me, the idea that the newborn and the fetus are BOTH not human makes no sense whatsoever. So unless you can provide me with a reason that the newborn is more human than the fetus... then it looks like I'm going to be a bit stuck understanding your viewpoint.

What do you think? Do you disagree?

Disagree. The two key characteristics for me are thinking and feeling. An embryo doesn't have the capacity for either. Even in a late-term fetus, it seems that these traits are suppressed until the changeover between fetal circulation and neo-natal circulation: until then, even basic neurological functions are "switched off".

I might see an argument that even if the ability for these things isn't present in a late-term fetus, the capacity is and this is worth something in and of itself, but I certainly flat-out reject the idea that a fertilized egg should have the same rights as a full-fledged person. I think this sort of attitude extremely devalues the person.

Edit: the only argument I can see that's even internally consistent against abortion from conception is based on the concept of "soul": if that's the moment that the "soul" is created/implanted and the soul is the basis of the value of a human life... okay. However, it's something I personally don't believe in, and I don't think it's a valid basis for public policy, since it doesn't measurably exist at all.

 

[AxisMundi]

No. Only a scientific one.

You of course have links to the peer reviewed science?

 

[Danmac]

Is there any biblical basis for the claim that life begins at conception?

We would not have a need for such a question if everyone valued life in the same way.
Where is PETA and all the tree huggers when you need them?

 

[AxisMundi]

So you consider taking another's life a right?
If someone sneaks into a delivery room and jab a sharp object into the baby being delivered and kill it before it is completely delivered or the head comes out should they be charged with murder?

More appeal to emotion fallacies from the people who really don't give a damn about the unborn, other than tools to gather votes and to pretend to look superior to everyone else.

If anti-choicers really cared, they would stop wasting time and money trying to overturn laws that have stood up time and time again to legal challenge, or by attempting to create sneaky laws intended to eliminate abortions without saying as much, and would certainly cease attempting to sway people's emotions which result in rolled eyes and completely ignoring the message, tactics such as that employed in the quote above.

Targeted education has helped lower the number of abortions to nearly pre-1973 numbers, not pictures of babies on busses, not photos of parts strewn across web pages, not calling people murders.

And yes, there were roughly a million abortions a year before Roe v Wade, some legal, some not. And NO where was it termed "murder" in any law.

People who really care do not participate in abortions and fully support a dry, demagoguery free targeted education designed specifically to lower the instances of unwanted pregnancies, and do not participate in the juvenile antics of the anti-choice crowd.

 

[DarkSun]

I don't personally think that implantation is certain enough to be considered "normal". The woman's body does some pretty extraordinary things during pregnancy to bring the embryo/fetus to term. It's not like the embryo just needs a quiet warm place to do its own thing.

Nothing is certain, really. Even after the child is born, there's no guarantee that it will survive more than a day. My point is that conception is the only real point where the the odds of a child being produce sky-rocket.

A single gamete on its own has virtually no chance of becoming a child unless it combines with the other gamete. And when they combine, you get conception... But if you just put an egg on a petri dish, without the other gamete, then you will not get a human life. Conception must occur first.

But just to back up a bit:

- almost every cell in our bodies carries the "full human genome". By itself, this doesn't make abortion any more objectionable than a haircut.

- when you say that something will develop into a human life, this implies that it is not yet a human life.

Just like a gamete, there is virtually no chance that a melaninocyte, a macrophage, or any single cell in the body will become a human. What must first happen is the unision of the sperm and the egg. Before that, there is almost zero chance.

Sure they do. Leave sperm and egg in close proximity and they'll "normally" develop into a baby with only a few more steps than a fertilized egg or a zygote.

Well done, you've just replicated conception.
Implant the zygote into an artifical womb, and we'll call it a life then.

Okay... on what basis?

On the basis that they'd still be capable of the full spectrum of human emotion.

Bonus question: why not apply that basis to humans as well, instead of appealing to quirks of our physiology?

Why not do both?

Heh... you said it, not me.

You didn't have to say it.
I agree that my opinion isn't stictly logical.

Here's the thing, though: IMO, if the embryo or fetus that became you had been aborted, it wouldn't have been you that was aborted.

What makes you "you"? What parts of you would have to disappear before you'd consider yourself to no longer be the person you are now? Whatever you come up with, I'd bet dollars to donuts that none of these key traits were present when "you" were a morula, for instance.

By aborting the embryo, you've destroyed any chance that I could ever be me... and thus destroyed me.

Actually, I'm thinking more along the lines of "what is it that makes a person a person, and when are these things present in human beings?

Heh... of course they're different; you just listed off differences.

Try looking at it another way: what about when we look at things in terms of values? What is it that you think makes a human life valuable? What is it about a person that makes their life more important than that of, say, a plant, bacterium, or a mouse?


Disagree. The two key characteristics for me are thinking and feeling. An embryo doesn't have the capacity for either. Even in a late-term fetus, it seems that these traits are suppressed until the changeover between fetal circulation and neo-natal circulation: until then, even basic neurological functions are "switched off".

I might see an argument that even if the ability for these things isn't present in a late-term fetus, the capacity is and this is worth something in and of itself, but I certainly flat-out reject the idea that a fertilized egg should have the same rights as a full-fledged person. I think this sort of attitude extremely devalues the person.

Emotion and higher cognitive function don't reach their peak directly after birth.
So applying that to your reasoning, the new born would be more human than the fetus... but it'd still be subhuman. Are you saying we should kill newborns because they aren't as alive as an adult?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Nothing is certain, really. Even after the child is born, there's no guarantee that it will survive more than a day. My point is that conception is the only real point where the the odds of a child being produce sky-rocket.

Not really. There's a reason why they tell people not to announce their pregancies until after the first trimester; it's because until then, the probability of miscarriage is significant.

A single gamete on its own has virtually no chance of becoming a child unless it combines with the other gamete. And when they combine, you get conception... But if you just put an egg on a petri dish, without the other gamete, then you will not get a human life. Conception must occur first.

And what I'm saying is that if you just put a fertilized egg in a petri dish, you won't get a human life either. If that's your test for something being "a life", then the thing you're arguing is "a life" fails your own test.

Just like a gamete, there is virtually no chance that a melaninocyte, a macrophage, or any single cell in the body will become a human. What must first happen is the unision of the sperm and the egg. Before that, there is almost zero chance.

And after that, there is very low chance as well... zero, in fact, unless it provides many very specific inputs from the mother.

Well done, you've just replicated conception.

Exactly. The difference between the thing you're saying is not "a life" at all and the thing you're saying is definitely "a life" is only a matter of degree. There's no justification for the black-and-white distinction you're making.

On the basis that they'd still be capable of the full spectrum of human emotion.

Okay... now, is a zygote capable of human emotion?

Personally, I'd say that emotion is a form of higher-order cognition, so something not capable of high-order cognition isn't capable of emotion.

Why call that a person, then?

Why not do both?

Because there's justification for the one basis but not for the other.

By aborting the embryo, you've destroyed any chance that I could ever be me... and thus destroyed me.

You can't destroy something that doesn't exist yet.

Emotion and higher cognitive function don't reach their peak directly after birth.
So applying that to your reasoning, the new born would be more human than the fetus... but it'd still be subhuman. Are you saying we should kill newborns because they aren't as alive as an adult?

I feel like you're not reading my argument.

I'm not saying that these things have to "reach their peak" before we declare personhood; I'm saying that these things should be there at some measurable level. They're not there before birth. Even if they're not there at the same level that they would be in an adult, they are there immediately after birth.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

Are we certain that life hasn't always existed? If not, how can we really be certain when conception begins?
The bible does not say directly, but it's teaching to me life comes from God. If it comes from God who are we to say when it is really begins?

 

[McBell]

Are we certain that life hasn't always existed? If not, how can we really be certain when conception begins?
The bible does not say directly, but it's teaching to me life comes from God. If it comes from God who are we to say when it is really begins?

We can certain when conception begins simply because conception is merely the joining of a living sperm to a living egg.

You mean began, right?
I say that life began a long long time ago and is a continuous ongoing process.
Because if either the egg or sperm are dead, there is no conception.

 

[DarkSun]

Not really. There's a reason why they tell people not to announce their pregancies until after the first trimester; it's because until then, the probability of miscarriage is significant.

But without several inputs from the mother, the newborn probably won't survive.

And what I'm saying is that if you just put a fertilized egg in a petri dish, you won't get a human life either. If that's your test for something being "a life", then the thing you're arguing is "a life" fails your own test.

And after that, there is very low chance as well... zero, in fact, unless it provides many very specific inputs from the mother.

Exactly. The difference between the thing you're saying is not "a life" at all and the thing you're saying is definitely "a life" is only a matter of degree. There's no justification for the black-and-white distinction you're making.

Okay, I see your point.

Okay... now, is a zygote capable of human emotion?

Nope.

Personally, I'd say that emotion is a form of higher-order cognition, so something not capable of high-order cognition isn't capable of emotion.

Emotion and all forms of cognition come down to physiology and biochemistry. These are things that the zygote is capable of, too.

You can't destroy something that doesn't exist yet.

Why not?
No, I mean that honestly. Why can't you destroy something by destroying the potential for it to exist?

I feel like you're not reading my argument.

I am reading your argument. Intuitively, to me, it makes no sense. Logically, it makes a lot of sense.

I'm not saying that these things have to "reach their peak" before we declare personhood; I'm saying that these things should be there at some measurable level. They're not there before birth. Even if they're not there at the same level that they would be in an adult, they are there immediately after birth.

They are at a measurable level before birth.

 

[lockyfan]

But penguin, it does exist. It is growing inside its mothers belly. It is a life in there already existing. It just hasnt come out yet.

 

[Theo_Book]

Is there any biblical basis for the claim that life begins at conception?

THE ISSUE: Determining at what point life begins in the womb.
To resolve the issue, then, let us take a look at life as it is born into the world. The new baby, most of the time, is said to be "alive," depending upon various and sundry "vital- signs, "Vital" from "vivus" being LAtin for "life, living."

Yet, we do not conclude that the baby "became" alive at the moment of birth, for then we must concern ourselves with the prebirth "kicking" of the babe in the womb. Is it alive? Or is it just "thinking about life to come? ("For lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb, for joy" Luke 1:44).

It is my position, life begins before the moment of birth; even prior to conception.

If the very definition of "life" involves the ability to point precisely to some perceived "spark," at which time an embryo becomes viable, or "alive," then I'm afraid the debate will continue to rage unabated. But I really believe we can do better than that, in our approach to such an important issue.

The first question I would raise, is a very simple one. Was the egg alive, or dead, at the precise moment it was joined by the sperm? If it was dead, how could the gametes then become a zygote, and grow to an embryo? A Foetus? Be born? Become A toddler? The simple answer to this question, then, is, the egg was alive.

The second question is; Did the mother originate life in the egg at the precise moment she passed it from the ovary to the Fallopian chamber, to begin its cycle, or was the egg alive when it was first produced into the cycle of the system?

The third question pertains to the sperm. Did the male give it life at the precise moment it left his testicle, to begin its journey in the cycle, or was the sperm alive while it resided in the male, awaiting the ejaculation process?

Now, we know that some Males are sterile, and cannot beget children. I do not address that issue here. And some Females cannot bear children. I do not address that issue, in this simple offering. The only issue I address is the issue of identifying the precise moment of the beginning of definable "life" in the "cycle of life."

I could get into a discussion of the effect of "puberty" upon the young potential Father, and Mother, but it would prove to be futile, because there have been no definitive scientific studies published, to my knowledge, pertaining to the moment "life" is passed to the egg and the sperm, due to Puberty. so, let's move on.

Life MUST reside in the body of the child, in order to mature in the adult. Where does it lie in wait? Where did it come from? Did the potential parent go to the doctor for a "progeny" shot. No! Is there a "make a baby" shot which passes life into the system. No! Not within the cycle in question.

Now, if life can be determined to be within the adult, prior to mating, and in the child, prior to maturation, and prior to puberty, whence did it come? Vitamins in the food, perhaps? No! Minerals? No! I don't believe it can be shown to be dietary in nature. Though diet may very well play a part in other aspects of the cycle of life, and passing it on.

The answer is simple, and leaves nothing to debate. "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." Genesis 2:7 (King James Version)

"...And God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth..." Genesis 1:28 (King James Version)

After God told Adam and Eve to be fruitful, and to replicate, and after man was cast from the garden, God revealed to them a secret, which still has men debating to this day. He told them where "life" was located in the cycle of life and death.
"For the life of the flesh is in the blood:..."[Lev 17:11]

"Therefore I said unto the children of Israel, No soul of you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger that sojourneth among you eat blood." [Lev 17:12]

"For it is THE LIFE OF ALL FLESH; the blood of it is FOR THE LIFE thereof: therefore I said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh: for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof: whosoever eateth it shall be cut off." [Lev 17:14]

"Only be sure that thou eat not the blood: for THE BLOOD IS the LIFE; and thou mayest not eat the life with the flesh." [Deut 12:23]

And so God tells us that the process by which "life" is passed to the egg is accomplished when the egg attatches itself to the wall of the uterus, and blood vessels are formed, by which life continues to be nourished in the gamete, in the zygote, in the embryo, in the foetus, in the baby, in the Birth canal, In the passage of birth, and after the umbilical cord is cut, life continues in the new-born.

Life did not originate in any step of the cycle. It was passed from Parent to child, all the way back to its origin..... in the Garden.

"....And it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him. And the Lord said unto Cain, Where is Abel, thy brother? And he said, I know not. Am I my brother's keeper? And He said, what hast thou done? The voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground." (Genesis chapter four, verses 8,9,10)

And there is the further statement I think pertinent to the debate, "Thus saith the Lord that made thee, and formed thee from the womb..." [Isa 44:2] And lest some one think this means "from" as in "post partum" look again at "Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb, I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations." [Jer 1:5]

When someone can show me someone (besides Jesus Christ) who came into this world separate and apart from the cycle of life which began in Eden, as herein described, I shall re-evaluate my conclusion.

© 1980 Theophilus Book

 

[Sententia]

Emotion and all forms of cognition come down to physiology and biochemistry. These are things that the zygote is capable of, too.

Darksun... if you birth a baby you can choose. If another births a baby and for whatever reason which may be private, personal and absolutely none of your business they choose an abortion then that is their choice. Never... was it your choice.

You impose and presume the position of a god capable of judging them and in your pathetic human form you still could have made the correct judgement. Yet still you would be wrong.

Never was the choice yours. Ever.