Life Begins at Conception

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Become a person.

Ah.

Nope.

Really. So you routinely treat as people things you acknowledge may not be people?

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.

Ah - so you want us to consider the "theoretical possibility" that we might be harming a person only when it comes to abortion?

I agree that the implications are absurd; that was my point. There are millions of ways in which there is at least a theoretical possibility that people will be harmed or be killed outright. In the vast majority of these situations, it's enough from an ethical perspective to simply be reasonably sure (not so certain as to remove any philosophical doubt) that harm or death will not occur. That's the same test that abortion meets... at least for people who don't hold the religious views that form the basis of most pro-life positions.

But we know with much more certainty that a zygote will at the very least become a person.

If a thing will "become a person", then it is necessarily not yet a person.

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....

But you asked for something more than that: it's not just a matter of giving an embryo or fetus some measure of respect. You said that we should treat it as a person. You can respect something without valuing it as much as a human life.

They are also contradictory.

I agree. I never said that the Bible necessarily agrees with itself. Actually, since it's a book that was written over centuries by many authors, I'd be surprised if it didn't contradict itself occasionally.

 

[smokydot]

We have no Biblical verse of Jesus saying, "I am God,'
nor do we have a Biblical verse, "God is triune,"
nor do we have a Biblical verse, "God is sovereign,"
nor do we have Biblical verse, "Human life begins at conception,"
none of which means the Bible does not clearly teach such.

These doctrines are arrived at by necessary implications of other verses, taken in the context of the Scriptures.

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, which is revealed in God's natural divine revelation in creation (Rom 1:19-21).

 

[Smoke]

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.

The capacity of Christians to misinterpret the Jewish scriptures appears to be boundless. Have you seen the Gospel According to Matthew?

 

[McBell]

We have no Biblical verse of Jesus saying, "I am God,'
nor do we have a Biblical verse, "God is triune,"
nor do we have a Biblical verse, "God is sovereign,"
nor do we have Biblical verse, "Human life begins at conception,"
none of which means the Bible does not clearly teach such.

These doctrines are arrived at by necessary implications of other verses, taken in the context of the Scriptures.

I completely agree.
Christians believe all manner of stuff that is NOT Biblical.

 

[smokydot]

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.

Are you saying this in reference to post #602 which presents the Biblical basis for human life beginning at conception?

 

[AxisMundi]

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.

Why should it be treated as a person?

Brainwaves aren't even detectable until around the 6th week, and remain incoherent well after that.

 

[AxisMundi]

We have no Biblical verse of Jesus saying, "I am God,'
nor do we have a Biblical verse, "God is triune,"
nor do we have a Biblical verse, "God is sovereign,"
nor do we have Biblical verse, "Human life begins at conception,"
none of which means the Bible does not clearly teach such.

These doctrines are arrived at by necessary implications of other verses, taken in the context of the Scriptures.

And the result is over a thousand different denominations just in Christianity alone.

 

[McBell]

Are you saying this in reference to post #602 which presents the Biblical basis for human life beginning at conception?

Post #602 is nothing more than cherry picking verses from the Bible that people think fit the premise.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Are you saying this in reference to post #602 which presents the Biblical basis for human life beginning at conception?

Well, I wrote that before that post was written.

 

[smokydot]

Well, I wrote that before that post was written.

You state that you used to think the list of Biblical verses pro-life folks use were always taken out of context, but when you saw
the earliest Christians used about the same texts to argue against abortion and infanticide, you had to change your mind;

and you also state that you don't think Christians would misinterpret something like this for 2000 years.

Do your above statements apply to the Biblical basis for human life beginning at conception which is presented in post #602?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You state that you used to think the list of Biblical verses pro-life folks use were always taken out of context, but when you saw
the earliest Christians used about the same texts to argue against abortion and infanticide, you had to change your mind;

and you also state that you don't think Christians would misinterpret something like this for 2000 years.

The mere fact that both you and the early Christian both arrived at an anti-abortion position doesn't mean that you got there by the same rationale.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The mere fact that both you and the early Christian both arrived at an anti-abortion position doesn't mean that you got there by the same rationale.

There you go.

 

[smokydot]

The mere fact that both you and the early Christian both arrived at an anti-abortion position doesn't mean that you got there by the same rationale.

Agreed. . .but that doesn't answer the question of post #610 addressed to Angellous-Evangellous,
regarding the Biblical basis for human life beginning at conception presented in post #602.

Angellous-Evangellous, do your statements of posts #588 and #593, which were presented in post #610,
apply to the Biblical basis for human life beginning at conception, as presented in post 602?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Agreed. . .but that doesn't answer the question of post #610 addressed to Angellous-Evangellous,
regarding the Biblical basis for human life beginning at conception presented in post #602.

Angellous-Evangellous, do your statements of posts #588 and #593, which were presented in post #610,
apply to the Biblical basis for human life beginning at conception, as presented in post 602?

No, because unlike the doctrines of the Trinity [and the other doctrines you mention] were in dispute since the beginning.

The stance on abortion and exposure, however, are consistent.

 

[smokydot]

No, because unlike the doctrines of the Trinity [and the other doctrines you mention] were in dispute since the beginning.

My question to you, in posts #610 and #613, was about the Biblical basis for human life beginning at conception, and was not about other Christian doctrines.

Do your statements in post #588 and #593, which were presented in post #610, apply to the Biblical basis for human life beginning at conception, which was presented in post #602?

The stance on abortion and exposure, however, are consistent.

To what "exposure" are you referring? Please explain.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

It's hard answering questions that aren't related to my post.

 

[Luminous]

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.

No, there is pleanty of idol scripture and non-idol scripture that is given more weight than it deserves. and sometimes completely taken out of context.

 

[Quiddity]

Really. So you routinely treat as people things you acknowledge may not be people?

Things? Is there something else that I'm not aware of that can become a person besides a human zygote?

Ah - so you want us to consider the "theoretical possibility" that we might be harming a person only when it comes to abortion?

Why would you do it with anything else besides human zygotes/embryos?

I agree that the implications are absurd; that was my point. There are millions of ways in which there is at least a theoretical possibility that people will be harmed or be killed outright. In the vast majority of these situations, it's enough from an ethical perspective to simply be reasonably sure (not so certain as to remove any philosophical doubt) that harm or death will not occur. That's the same test that abortion meets... at least for people who don't hold the religious views that form the basis of most pro-life positions.

Religious or not, no rational person would have phobia's about a person being everywhere. You are acting upon different faculties here. A better example would be blowing up a building where it is likely people pass and rome in or about the building. It would be irresponsible to push the button.

If a thing will "become a person", then it is necessarily not yet a person.

Well, I believe ensoulment of zygotes happens upon conception. Assuming it's true it doesn't happen until later in the process, potentiality still has value IMO. Knowing I could've saved someone from becoming.......is meaningful and valuable. Of course, this is a value judgment based on my perspective faith but I find the alternative absolutely cold and without hope if taken to it's end.

But you asked for something more than that: it's not just a matter of giving an embryo or fetus some measure of respect. You said that we should treat it as a person. You can respect something without valuing it as much as a human life.

I'm sure you knew I didn't mean it in the same way you'd respect a piece of property. Most people value animals above cars for example. There is a heriarchy there; even if you're not religious.

 

[Quiddity]

Why should it be treated as a person?

Brainwaves aren't even detectable until around the 6th week, and remain incoherent well after that.

Brainwaves nor coherence defines what a person is for me. Does it for you? Not that simple right?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why would you do it with anything else besides human zygotes/embryos?

Avoidance of hipocrisy immediately comes to mind.

Please keep in mind that I'm making a distinction between your position (an embryo/fetus is a definite person) and the position you're advocating for others (treat the embryo/fetus as a definite person...apparently, even if you believe it isn't a person but aren't completely certain).

Your position... fine. It's based on premises I don't personally agree with, but I see it's consistent. The position you're advocating for others, though... I think it doesn't work logically. If the rationale for it is actually correct, then it would have absurd implications, as I've been trying to point out.

Religious or not, no rational person would have phobia's about a person being everywhere. You are acting upon different faculties here. A better example would be blowing up a building where it is likely people pass and rome in or about the building. It would be irresponsible to push the button.

So... in your mind, if a person reflects and comes to the sincere conclusion that a fetus is not a person to a reasonable degree of certainty (but not a perfect degree), you would agree that such a person could be justified in participating in an abortion?

Well, I believe ensoulment of zygotes happens upon conception. Assuming it's true it doesn't happen until later in the process, potentiality still has value IMO. Knowing I could've saved someone from becoming.......is meaningful and valuable. Of course, this is a value judgment based on my perspective faith but I find the alternative absolutely cold and without hope if taken to it's end.

Again... it's not your personal position that I'm taking issue with. It's the position that you've said that others should take. It seems to me that it's a product of the premises that you've assumed (e.g. your religious beliefs on "ensoulment") and therefore doesn't work when someone who hasn't accepted those premises tries to apply it.

I'm sure you knew I didn't mean it in the same way you'd respect a piece of property. Most people value animals above cars for example. There is a heriarchy there; even if you're not religious.

Also, most people value babies over fetuses, and fetuses over embryos.* I think your argument throws the hierarchy you refer to out the window.



*And I think even the Catholic Church acknowledges this in its own way. I've never heard of a live-born baby born to a Catholic family not having a funeral (if it dies, of course). I occasionally hear of miscarried late-term fetuses receiving funeral rites... but it seems to be the exception rather than the rule. I've never ever heard of a Catholic funeral for an embryo or a first-trimester fetus.