Life Begins at Conception

[smokydot]

Is there a Biblical basis for the claim that human life begins at conception?

Yes, there is, but it is not in a verse which states, "Human life begins at conception."
It requires understanding of a Biblical principle, and then connecting the Biblical "dots" to learn the Bible's view on the issue.
So let's begin with the first "dot," which is the Biblical principle involved.

1)The NT teaches that Scripture is not the only source revealing the existence and nature of God, but that nature itself is also divine revelation.
". . .what may be known about God is plain to them (men who suppress the truth by their wickedness) because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." (Rom 1:18-21)
The OT likewise teaches that God can be known in creation (Ps 19:1-4, 97:6).
Then the NT goes on to say that God's moral will is also known from nature. Speaking of the same group as Rom 1:18-31, it says that, "Although they know (from creation alone) God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them." (Rom 1:32)

What the NT is referring to here is called natural divine revelation, as distinct from special divine revelation from God himself, in the Bible. It is called natural because it is revealed in nature,
and while it is outside the Bible, the NT presents it as authoritative (men are without excuse for not knowing about God from nature alone, and are morally responsible
for practices contrary to God's righteousness, revealed in nature alone).
Take a moment to let this Biblical principle sink in.

There is authoritative revelation outside the Bible--in creation. It is authoritative because by that revelation mankind is held accountable. Nature reveals the existence of God, it reveals his nature (eternal, divine, righteous). Likewise, the laws in God's nature reveal how his nature works; for example,
animal life cannot exist without food and water, rendering false any assertion that, under the right conditions, animal life can live without food and water;
"what goes up must come down," rendering false any assertion that some matter is not subject to the force of gravity;
plants begin as seeds, rendering false any assertion that we can feed the world without the use of seeds;
evaporation condenses into rain, rendering false any assertion that rain is exhaustive.
Granted, these examples limp, but you get the point: the laws in God's nature are authoritative regarding how his nature works, and it is at our own peril that we conjure up new laws by which to operate.

The upshot of this Biblical prinicple is that basing (by some very strange occurrence) an immoral act on one of these false assertions about nature, does not remove the immorality of the act,
because the laws in nature (authoritative natural revelation) reveal the basis of your claim justifying your immoral act to be false, therefore there will be accountability for that immoral act.

2) So having shown the Biblical principle regarding the authority of natural divine revelation as seen in creation (Rom 1:19-21), let us move to the second "dot,"
which is to examine what this Biblical principle (authoritative natural divine revelation in creation) reveals in regard to life in the womb.
Let's do this by the Socractic method, questions.

What kind of life is in a corn seed, corn life or cotton life? When the corn seed is planted in the ground, what kind of life begins to grow, corn life or cotton life?
And what kind of life is in a cotton seed? When the cotton seed is planted in the ground, what kind of life begins to grow?
And what kind of life is in human seed? When human seed is planted in the womb of a woman, what kind of life begins to grow?
Is there any time when the life produced by the corn or cotton seed is not corn or cotton life, but is tomato or grape life instead?
And because God's laws in his creation make clear the nature of seeds, neither is there any time when the life produced by human seed (Lev 15:16-18,32, 1 Pet 1:23) is not human life,
but generic "animal life" instead.

Note that when the corn plant, the tomato plant, the cotton plant and the grape plant sprout, they all look very much the same, and continue to do so through the initial stages of growth to the green shoot,
so that we can hardly tell them apart. Does that mean they are all the same kind of life, just generic "plant life," rather than corn, tomato, cotton and grape life, respectively? It does not.
Plants are never just generic "plant life" because of the nature of the seed. Generic life does not exist in God's nature, life is always a particular kind of life, determined by the nature of the seed (Lk 6:44).
Generic life is only an abstraction, whereby we classify similar groups of objects.

So God's natural divine revelation in creation (Rom 1:18-21) reveals that the nature of seeds does not allow for a simple generic form of life from a seed,
but that its life is a particular kind of life, determined by the nature of the seed, from the moment that it is life at all.
And so it is, that when we "connect the dots" between God's special divine revelation (the Bible), which reveals the prinicple of his authoritative revelation in nature (Rom 1: 19-21),
and which is where we find the nature of seeds,
God clearly reveals in nature that life in the womb from human seed (Lev 15:16-18,32, 1 Pet 1:23) is human life from the moment of conception.

And then finally, do we find this principle, which is revealed in the natural divine revelation of creation, reflected anywhere in the special divine revelation of the Bible? Yes, we do.
Exod 21:22-25 makes clear that prenatal and postnatal life are the same, for the penalty for killing the fruit of the womb is (human) life for (human) life in the womb (v.23).
Note the penalty for killing "animal life" (Lev 24:21) is not the same as the penalty for killing the fruit of the womb (Exod 21:23), because the fruit of the womb is not just generic animal life, it is human life and killing it requires the death penalty.
NB: The penalty for killing the pregnant woman is dealt with in Gen 9:6, Exod 21:12, Lev 24:17,19-21, Deut 19:11-13,21.

So the Biblical basis for human life beginning at conception should be clear, from both special divine revelation (Exod 21:22-25) and the nature of seeds, revealed in God's natural divine revelation in his creation (Rom 1:19-21).

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Is there a Biblical basis for the claim that life begins at conception?

Yes, there is, but it is not in a verse which states, "Life begins at conception."
It requires understanding of a Biblical principle, and then connecting the Biblical "dots" to learn the Bible's view on the issue. So let's begin with the first "dot ."

1)The NT teaches that Scripture is not the only source revealing the existence and nature of God, but that nature itself is also divine revelation.
". . .what may be known about God is plain to them (men who suppress the truth by their wickedness) because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." (Rom 1:18-21)
The OT likewise teaches that God can be known in creation (Ps 19:1-4, 97:6).
Then the NT goes on to say that God's moral will is also known from nature. Speaking of the same group as Rom 1:18-31, it says that, "Although they know (from creation alone) God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them." (Rom 1:32)

What the NT is referring to here is called natural divine revelation, as distinct from special divine revelation from God himself, in the Bible. It is called natural because it is revealed in nature,
and while it is outside the Bible, the NT presents it as authoritative (men are without excuse for not knowing about God from nature alone, and are morally responsible
for practices contrary to God's righteousness, revealed in nature alone).
Take a moment to let this sink in.

There is authoritative revelation outside the Bible--in creation. It is authoritative because by that revelation mankind is held accountable. Nature reveals the existence of God, it reveals his nature (eternal, divine, righteous). And the laws in God's nature reveal how his nature works; for example,
animal life cannot exist without food and water, rendering false any assertion that, under the right conditions, animal life can live without food and water;
"what goes up must come down," rendering false any assertion that some matter is not subject to the force of gravity;
plants begin as seeds, rendering false any assertion that we can feed the world without the use of seeds;
evaporation condenses into rain, rendering false any assertion that rain is exhaustive.
Granted, these examples limp, but you get the point: the laws in nature are authoritative regarding how nature works, and it is at our own peril that we conjure up new ones by which to operate.

The upshot of all of this is that basing (by some strange occurrence) an immoral act on one of these false assertions about nature, does not remove the immorality of the act,
because the laws in nature (authoritative natural revelation) reveal the basis of your claim to justify your immoral act is false, therefore there will be accountability for that immoral act.

2) So having shown Biblical teaching on the authority of natural divine revelation as seen in creation, let us move to the second "dot"
to examine what the natural divine revelation of creation reveals in this regard.
Let's do this by the Socractic method, questions.

What kind of life is in a corn seed, corn life or cotton life? When the corn seed is planted in the ground, what kind of life begins to grow, corn life or cotton life?
And what kind of life is in a cotton seed? When the cotton seed is planted in the ground, what kind of life begins to grow?
And what kind of life is in human seed? When human seed is planted in the womb of a woman, what kind of life begins to grow?
Is there any time when the life produced by the corn or cotton seed is not corn or cotton life, but is tomato or grape life instead?
Neither is there any time when the life produced by human seed is not human life, but generic "animal life" instead.

Note that when the corn plant, the tomato plant, the cotton plant and the grape plant sprout, they all look very much the same, and continue to do so through the initial stages of growth to the green shoot,
so that we can hardly tell them apart. Does that mean they are all the same kind of life, just generic "plant life," rather than corn, tomato, cotton and grape life, respectively? It does not.
Plants are never just generic "plant life" because of the nature of the seed. Generic life does not exist in God's nature, life is always a particular kind of life, determined by the nature of the seed (Lk 6:44).
Generic life is only an abstraction, whereby we classify similar groups of objects.

So God's divine revelation in nature clearly reveals that life from a seed is not generic "plant or animal life," but is always a particular kind of life, determined by the nature of the seed, from the moment that it is life at all.
And so it is, that when we "connect the dots" between God's special divine revelation (the Bible) and his natural divine revelation (Rom 1: 19-21) in the nature of seeds,
God clearly reveals that life from human seed is human life from the moment of conception.

And finally, then do we find this principle, revealed in natural divine revelation, reflected anywhere in the special divine revelation of the Bible? Yes, we do.
Exod 21:22-25 makes clear that prenatal and postnatal life are the same, for the penalty for killing the fruit of the womb is (human) life for (human) life in the womb (v.23).
Note the penalty for killing "animal life" (Lev 24:21) is not the same as the penalty for killing the fruit of the womb (Exod 21:23), because the fruit of the womb is not just generic animal life, it is human life and killing it requires the death penalty.
NB: The penalty for killing the pregnant woman is dealt with in Gen 9:6, Exod 21:12, Lev 24:17,19-21, Deut 19:11-13,21.

So the Biblical basis, in both special divine revelation (Exod 21:22-25) and natural divine revelation (Rom 1:19-21), for life beginning at conception should be clear.

Unfortunately all of this is useless for what you're trying to prove.

 

[Quiddity]

I have no idea, but it must be treated as if it were a person from the moment of conception, even if there exists the theoretical possibility that it might not yet be so.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I have no idea, but it must be treated as if it were a person from the moment of conception, even if there exists the theoretical possibility that it might not yet be so.

In all cases?

If there's uncertainty, then I'd say not. Certainly not in any case where we're weighing a "theoretical possibility" of life against a non-theoretical actuality of life, such as in the hypothetical case where a pregnant woman has some condition where it's necessary to choose between the life of the fetus and the life of the mother.

Speaking for myself, I'd consider it reasonable to risk my life to save an infant from a fire. I wouldn't consider it reasonable to risk my life to save a frozen embryo... even if I were to acknowledge a theoretical possibility that the embryo is a person.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

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

Yes, in the sense that Christians have used biblical theology and principles to argue for life beginning at or near conception == and therefore argued against abortion and infanticide since earliest Christianity.

No, in the sense that there is no bible verse that states "life begins at conception." The basis of the argument is taking biblical texts and interpreting them in a way that may or may not be taken in context.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I have no idea, but it must be treated as if it were a person from the moment of conception, even if there exists the theoretical possibility that it might not yet be so.

Just had another thought.

Imagine this scenario: you're demolishing a building with explosives. You've followed all the relevant safety rules: you've got a big fence around the property, you've posted lots of signs, you've got loudspeakers shouting that the building is going to be demolished, and you've done security sweeps of the building to make sure it's unoccupied.

Still, there's a very small but definitely non-zero possibility that there's someone inside. Maybe a child scaled the fence and climbed back in after the security sweep. Maybe the security personnel didn't check behind a locked door that's actually being used as a homeless person's living space. There is definitely a theoretical possibility that your action of blowing up the building will end a person's life. Is it acceptable to do it?

Now... here's the big question: if it's acceptable for the demolition crew to disregard a theoretical possibility of a person (a miniscule possibility perhaps, but still definitely a possibility), why isn't it acceptable in other cases?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes, in the sense that Christians have used biblical theology and principles to argue for life beginning at or near conception == and therefore argued against abortion and infanticide since earliest Christianity.

No, in the sense that there is no bible verse that states "life begins at conception." The basis of the argument is taking biblical texts and interpreting them in a way that may or may not be taken in context.

IMO, the closest that the Bible gets to giving a point at which life begins is in God's instructions in Numbers regarding the counting of the tribes of Israel. IIRC, a child had to be at least a month old before he was counted as a person.

I think that pro-life people tend to disregard this because it doesn't give the answer they want.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

IMO, the closest that the Bible gets to giving a point at which life begins is in God's instructions in Numbers regarding the counting of the tribes of Israel. IIRC, a child had to be at least a month old before he was counted as a person.

I think that pro-life people tend to disregard this because it doesn't give the answer they want.

Oh, there's a laundry list of biblical verses that pro-life folks use.

I used to think that these verses were always taken out of context, but when I saw that the earliest Christians used about the same text to argue against abortion and infanticide, I had to change my mind.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Just had another thought.

Imagine this scenario: you're demolishing a building with explosives. You've followed all the relevant safety rules: you've got a big fence around the property, you've posted lots of signs, you've got loudspeakers shouting that the building is going to be demolished, and you've done security sweeps of the building to make sure it's unoccupied.

Still, there's a very small but definitely non-zero possibility that there's someone inside. Maybe a child scaled the fence and climbed back in after the security sweep. Maybe the security personnel didn't check behind a locked door that's actually being used as a homeless person's living space. There is definitely a theoretical possibility that your action of blowing up the building will end a person's life. Is it acceptable to do it?

Now... here's the big question: if it's acceptable for the demolition crew to disregard a theoretical possibility of a person (a miniscule possibility perhaps, but still definitely a possibility), why isn't it acceptable in other cases?

Can you re-read this and make sure that it is a proper analogy?

As it appears, it doesn't seem to be applicable.

 

[Luminous]

Bacteria doesn't have the 46 chromosomes that make up a human being. The zygote is human. It's alive. It's therefore a living human being. It is that fact, not the tricky matter of defining sentience, that stands behind the view that the zygote has rights over against the mother. There is literally no basis of comparison between a human zygote and a bacterium, so let's just stop it with the red herrings, aaight?

Its not really a right if you force it on someone. besides, rights only come from our imagination. life begins at definition. by your standards a down syndrome child is not alive...because it is not human. and if a down syndrom child is alive then so are sperm and eggs...which amazingly, are very similar to a zygote...and so are your stem cells.

 

[Quiddity]

Just had another thought.

Imagine this scenario: you're demolishing a building with explosives. You've followed all the relevant safety rules: you've got a big fence around the property, you've posted lots of signs, you've got loudspeakers shouting that the building is going to be demolished, and you've done security sweeps of the building to make sure it's unoccupied.

Still, there's a very small but definitely non-zero possibility that there's someone inside. Maybe a child scaled the fence and climbed back in after the security sweep. Maybe the security personnel didn't check behind a locked door that's actually being used as a homeless person's living space. There is definitely a theoretical possibility that your action of blowing up the building will end a person's life. Is it acceptable to do it?

Now... here's the big question: if it's acceptable for the demolition crew to disregard a theoretical possibility of a person (a miniscule possibility perhaps, but still definitely a possibility), why isn't it acceptable in other cases?

Because an embryo is hardly a "minicule possibility". The chances are extremely high that it will. Not to mention that in your theoretical scenerio, one is making every effort that harm doesn't come to anyone.

 

[Luminous]

Oh, there's a laundry list of biblical verses that pro-life folks use.

I used to think that these verses were always taken out of context, but when I saw that the earliest Christians used about the same text to argue against abortion and infanticide, I had to change my mind.

the earliest christians probably also took it out of context too...

one of Jesus' magical miracles was that he knew a woman was pregnant even though it would have been hard to guess...conclusion, Jesus would have forced her to have that child.

one of the idol verses states that God had already know Jeremiah's destiny since before conception....conclusion, God forced his mother to have him.

conclusion, we should force women to have babies if they get pregnant because we can't trust them to make the right choice, being as God sends babies to hell in order to punish the parents.

:sarcastic

 

[angellous_evangellous]

the earliest christians probably also took it out of context too...

No, I don't think so. There's always a possibility, but I don't think that Christians would misinterpret something like this for 2000 years.

 

[Luminous]

and i continue: Jewish law in the old idol testament...states that killing someone else's baby in the womb is punishable by death (only when its human), conclusion - women should be forced to have a baby if they get pregnant.
christians only use cultural context when it suits them.
The REAL basis for the conclusion here is: I want it to be so, ergo it should be so.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Can you re-read this and make sure that it is a proper analogy?

As it appears, it doesn't seem to be applicable.

I see the possible presence of a definite person and the definite presence of a possible person to be equivalent. In both cases, there is some unavoidable, non-zero risk that a person will be harmed.

Because an embryo is hardly a "minicule possibility". The chances are extremely high that it will.

It will what?

It seems to me that you're arguing from a position that an embryo is definitely a person. I'm going on the basis of what you suggested before: where the "personhood" of the embryo is merely considered to be a theoretical possibility. You suggested that this dictated a certain approach; I just wonder if this is consistent with our approach to other issues, such as one where the presence of a person is a theoretical possibility.

Not to mention that in your theoretical scenerio, one is making every effort that harm doesn't come to anyone.

Same for abortion. The only difference is that in the case of the building demolition, you're looking for signs that what you know is an actual person is present. In the case of considering the ethics of abortion, you're looking for signs that what you know is present is an actual person. Two sides of the same coin.

 

[Quiddity]

and i continue: Jewish law in the old idol testament...states that killing someone else's baby in the womb is punishable by death (only when its human), conclusion - women should be forced to have a baby if they get pregnant.
christians only use cultural context when it suits them.
The REAL basis for the conclusion here is: I want it to be so, ergo it should be so.

Versus, say, people who are immune from using text for their benefit? Only Christians do this?

My interpretation is better then yours.......na na na.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Versus, say, people who are immune from using text for their benefit? Only Christians do this?

My interpretation is better then yours.......na na na.

IMO, both interpretations are equally good. The Bible has something for everyone.

 

[Quiddity]

It will what?

Become a person.

It seems to me that you're arguing from a position that an embryo is definitely a person.

Nope.

I'm going on the basis of what you suggested before: where the "personhood" of the embryo is merely considered to be a theoretical possibility. You suggested that this dictated a certain approach; I just wonder if this is consistent with our approach to other issues, such as one where the presence of a person is a theoretical possibility.

You really see this as a valid comparison? I couldn't even turn on my car for fear that a child might just be stuck in between the hood and the motor. You couldn't do several things. Such a comparison is simply nuts. But we know with much more certainty that a zygote will at the very least become a person.

Same for abortion. The only difference is that in the case of the building demolition, you're looking for signs that what you know is an actual person is present. In the case of considering the ethics of abortion, you're looking for signs that what you know is present is an actual person. Two sides of the same coin.

I'm not looking for any signs. I'm going to treat it with respect even if it's not a person. We are all overgrown embryos anyhow....

 

[Quiddity]

IMO, both interpretations are equally good. The Bible has something for everyone.

They are also contradictory.

 

[smokydot]

Unfortunately all of this is useless for what you're trying to prove.

But post #581 is not.