Life Begins at Conception

[Storm]

I can't say. Whatever a mother does to her baby she also does to herself.

No, not really. Abortion =/= suicide.

 

[TurkeyOnRye]

No, not really. Abortion =/= suicide.

No, I just mean that there is a very real connection there between mother and child. One could say that for a while, they are essentially a single living organism.

 

[Storm]

Ok.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

This thread “Life Begins At Conception,” opens with the question “Is there any Biblical basis for the claim that life begins at conception?” As no one on this forum can possibly know at what time in the history of this evolving universe that life began, we are left to assume that human life is the subject referred to, and even then, if our assumption is correct, we would have to go back beyond the life of the animals from which we developed as an extension to that animating animal life, in order to answer the said question.

Are you seriously trying to inject an evolutionary view of human development into a the Biblical view of when human life begins?

We must then assume that the answer that is being asked for, must be, “is there any Biblical basis for the claim that a Human Being exists from the moment of conception?”

Did anyone doubt that?

As you have correctly pointed out, the Bible differentiates between the unborn animal foetuses,

of which animals, we humans share some 80% of our DNA, and the being who, when the umbilical cord is severed and it is separated from the mother body and takes its first breath of air and is able to then begin to take in the universal information with which it senses will now be bombarded.

I pointed out no such thing

"

Please provide the "correct" translation."

Luke 2: 5; as originally written in the Greek, uses the Greek word "eykous," which means "Pregnant, holding in, conceiving," see 'Young's Analytical Concordance to the Bible.' Irrelevant to what the English translators have written, the Bible said that Mary's pregnancy was nearing its full term.[/quote]Is this the same young of the Youngs bible?

Are we to assume that the early, and supposedly incorrect, translators conpired to call an unborn human a "child?"

Also, what about the 18 or so usages of "with child" in the OT?

Also why have such translations as the New KJV, the Hebrew Names Version, Websters, Darby, the NIV or the NAS, to name a few, continued to present this "wrong" translation?

Also, is there any version that translate it as being "pregnant?"

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Also..

If a sperm embedding into an ovum is the moment of life..and when the soul enters therefore has the 'right" as a person to live ...but can not do so without the "life support" of the mother then why do we take people off of life support who are brain dead who are clearly people with souls?And please dont say one is artificial and modern technology and the other isnt.So is life support for a preemie.So is chemo therapy for cancer..So is putting a splint in someone with with a head injury to relieve pressure so their brain stem isnt squeezed and they stop breathing on their own.. so is seperating conjoined twins...so are many things.It all adds up to if the mother gets pregnant..Somehow she "owes it " to a potential life to carry full term and give birth.

Love

Dallas

Assuming that a person is not a person until they can sustain themselves, perhaps abortion should be legal until about, say, six.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

All life is important, but no life is sacred, let the mother decide what's best for herself, according to her own beliefs, not somebody else's beliefs, or some group or church's beliefs.

For a "Logician" that's a completely illogical statement.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Life began billions of years ago, and it continues to thrive. Let's worry more about war and famine than what a woman decides to do with her own body. More pain and sentient suffering would exist in the loss of my index finger than the loss of an embryo.

That addresses the OP...not.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Assuming that a person is not a person until they can sustain themselves, perhaps abortion should be legal until about, say, six.

In Numbers 3:14-16, when God commanded Moses to count the Levites, He clarified that the count should only include "every male a month old or more." Maybe that's the "Biblical" answer: we become a person at one month old... males, anyhow.

 

[S-word]

Are you seriously trying to inject an evolutionary view of human development into a the Biblical view of when human life begins?

Did anyone doubt that?

I pointed out no such thing

Please provide the "correct" translation."

Luke 2: 5; as originally written in the Greek, uses the Greek word "eykous," which means "Pregnant, holding in, conceiving," see 'Young's Analytical Concordance to the Bible.' Irrelevant to what the English translators have written, the Bible said that Mary's pregnancy was nearing its full term.

Is this the same young of the Youngs bible?

Are we to assume that the early, and supposedly incorrect, translators conpired to call an unborn human a "child?"

Also, what about the 18 or so usages of "with child" in the OT?

Also why have such translations as the New KJV, the Hebrew Names Version, Websters, Darby, the NIV or the NAS, to name a few, continued to present this "wrong" translation?

Also, is there any version that translate it as being "pregnant?"[/quote]


quote sandy whitelinger; "Is this the same young of the Youngs bible?"


By S-word: No, unlike most other concordances Young's groups each listing of words in the "King James Version" both by the English translation, and by the Greek or Hebrew word underllying it, so each entry is word study in itself. If you are truely interested in getting to the truth in scripture you might well invest in a copy of the Book.

quote sandy whitelinger; Are we to assume that the early, and supposedly incorrect, translators conpired to call an unborn human a "child?"

By S-word: No, there was no conspiracy. Like yourself, they erroneously believed that if one were pregnant with a forming animal feotus it was already a human child.

quote sandy whitelinger; Also why have such translations as the New KJV, the Hebrew Names Version, Websters, Darby, the NIV or the NAS, to name a few, continued to present this "wrong" translation?


We could argue back and forward for ages and never come to an agreement, but nowhere in the original Greek New Testament or the original Hebrew Old Testament is it said that a woman was “WITH CHILD,” but if the truth is of no interest to you and you choose to believe that the original documents did say “WITH CHILD” then so be it, you seem so happy wallowing in your dark ignorance, the shock of being dragged into the world of enlightenment, might just be too much for you.

quote sandy whitelinger; Also, is there any version that translate it as being "pregnant?"


By S-word: Yea, the original Greek and original Hebrew do, but they are the originals and not translations.

 

[DarkSun]

Of course life begins at conception. A zygote is life, but so is bacteria. You wouldn't consider killing bacteria murder. Murder is the unjust killing of sentient/sapient life, of which zygotes, embryos, fetuses are not. Just my 0.02 USD

Define sentient/sapient life.

What if we aborted a "fetus" two weeks before it would otherwise be born? Would that be murder? To me that sounds like killing babies.

What if the fetus is aborted four weeks before? Six weeks? Twelve weeks?

Where do you draw the line?

Personally, I say at conception.

 

[DarkSun]

In Numbers 3:14-16, when God commanded Moses to count the Levites, He clarified that the count should only include "every male a month old or more." Maybe that's the "Biblical" answer: we become a person at one month old... males, anyhow.

Or maybe this is the answer:

"Thou shalt not murder."

"Love your neighbour as yourself."

 

[DallasApple]

Or maybe this is the answer:

"Thou shalt not murder."

"Love your neighbour as yourself."

Then you should have HUGE issues with people on life support that are brain dead being taken off of life support.

Or wait I know lets go with "preventative"..and NEVER put them on life support.

Love

Dallas

 

[logician]

Define sentient/sapient life.

What if we aborted a "fetus" two weeks before it would otherwise be born? Would that be murder? To me that sounds like killing babies.

What if the fetus is aborted four weeks before? Six weeks? Twelve weeks?

Where do you draw the line?

Personally, I say at conception.

The law says otherwise, the only "personal" beliefs that are pertinent are the mother's.

 

[McBell]

Then you should have HUGE issues with people on life support that are brain dead being taken off of life support.

Or wait I know lets go with "preventative"..and NEVER put them on life support.

Love

Dallas

One thing that never made any sense to me are the people who make claims like "your trying to play God" when someone wants to pull the plug, yet see nothing wrong with using a machine to keep someone alive who would be dead without the machine.

How is attaching someone to a machine to keep them alive not "playing God" but turning said machine of is?

 

[McBell]

Define sentient/sapient life.

What if we aborted a "fetus" two weeks before it would otherwise be born? Would that be murder? To me that sounds like killing babies.

What if the fetus is aborted four weeks before? Six weeks? Twelve weeks?

Where do you draw the line?

Personally, I say at conception.

Oh goody!!!!!
The "what if" game!!!!


Can I play too?
What if my aunt had balls?
Would that make her my uncle?

 

[Sententia]

Just like a tumor, or a toe.

Exactly. Or any other cell in your body that has specialized and ceased to be a stem cell. Any cell in your body contains the DNA to make you. POC you started from one cell.

The death of Tiller, murdered in his church is a crime of hate fostered by the many who characterized him as satan and beyond Blowhard Bill many people are libel and fostering and nurturing this hate.

They seem to be doing so by not justifying their reasons with themselves or with science but with something outside of humanity and basic morality. Like the prayer and elation of people crashing planes into our building or the orgasmic joy of a suicide bomber some people seem to revel in growing this hatred and its consuming fury of consequences.

Its abhorrent to me. The judging and mocking of those that need abortions for clinical reasons by the Tyrants of Jesus should disgust all but they self justify outside of logic. Abortion is a choice a woman is allowed to make for herself.

But those that seek to deprive a woman of her choice and to enforce their innane, supersticious and ignorant beliefs on the masses are no different then those that were burning witches and warlocks, executing atheists because they refuse to believe in god or ripping the tongues from blasphemers.

So do you judge and act on behalf of whatever you deem to be your personal greater then everyone else superholypower.

Shame just doesnt seem like enough. sigh.

 

[DarkSun]

The law says otherwise, the only "personal" beliefs that are pertinent are the mother's.

I wasn't arguing about law, I was arguing morality.

What the law says is irrelevant, because in this case, it is wrong.

While I feel sorry for all mothers who have been raped or who feel forced to have a child they do not want, the fact remains that murder is murder.

 

[DarkSun]

Then you should have HUGE issues with people on life support that are brain dead being taken off of life support.

Or wait I know lets go with "preventative"..and NEVER put them on life support.

Love

Dallas

Wasn't this thread about life beginning at conception?

 

[S-word]

Wasn't this thread about life beginning at conception?

It was. And it has been shown conclusively that life began long before conception: End of discussion. If you wish to debate whether the forming animal foetus in which and independant spirit/mind will develop after it is born can be classified as a human being which is contrary to Christian scripture, then you should begin a new thread.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Like yourself, they erroneously believed that if one were pregnant with a forming animal feotus it was already a human child. but if the truth is of no interest to you and you choose to believe that the original documents did say “WITH CHILD” then so be it, you seem so happy wallowing in your dark ignorance, the shock of being dragged into the world of enlightenment, might just be too much for you.

At the risk of being censured, "Up yours." We're done.