Life is in the blood...

[jsn9333]

Your passion about the subject is honorable. But if you replace "conception" or "conceived" in your post with "implantation" or with "the point at which a child gets its own blood type" then it makes just as much sense. The fetus or child can't live on its own before that point, etc. etc.

I see no biblical reason to arbitrarily pick conception over, say implantation. Sure there may be a logical reason (as we discussed on page 1), but no biblical reason that I have seen. So far I have seen more biblical support for the "blood" argument (7 weeks) and even the "breathe" argument (3rd Trimester or even birth) then arbitrarily picking the point of conception.

Plus, as far as your analogies to the general stories of the Jews, etc., people could analogize from those stories in an extremely wide variety of ways. The connection is just to indirect to the topic of life. Other verses approach the topic of what exactly life consists of in a much more direct and clear way. ("the life is in the blood" or "life was breathed into them", etc.)

When we look at the birth of the nation of Israel, when did it begin? Did it begin when God parted the see and they became a free people or did it begin much sooner? God made Abraham a promise that through his seed would be a great nation, that promise was fulfilled when they became free from Egypt.

Egypt represents the womb. They were being prepared to be able to survive on their own as a people. It started with the promise to one man. From Abraham it went to Isaac and to Jacob and then the twelve. I think they were 70 strong when they were invited to Egypt. I see this time as the conception.

Just as a child receives the nutrients in the mothers womb, so did this nation of people. When a child is concieved, it can't survive outside the womb, it isn't equipped to handle life outside of the safety of the mothers womb. Same for Israel. They couldn't survive a famine or an attack from enemies. God placed them there so they would grow strong and He was protecting them. He was preparing them for life as a nation.

We see the same for the promise of Canaan. The conception for that promise began when they became a free people, the promise was not born into reality until they possessed the land.

The way I see it, life has to start at conception. To ignore this is to ignore our repentance. When the Lord speaks to your heart and draws you to Him, that is the conception. To draw away from His love is a murder.

True, there are forms of birth control that prevent the conception today, but JSN was asking for Biblical proof. The proof is that nothing can prevent God from planting His seed in a person. So the conception in a person does take place. Not all make it to the new birth (Born Again). Those that do not, have murdered themselves before birth.

I acknowledge the life of Israel before they became a nation, and I acknowledge life in a Christian before they are born again, so I also acknowledge life in a child before they are born. To be consistent, if you ignore a child's life before their birth, you need to also ignore the others.
This is just the way I see it, I would be interested in your thoughts...

 

[Outsider]

Your passion about the subject is honorable. But if you replace "conception" or "conceived" in your post with "implantation" or with "the point at which a child gets its own blood type" then it makes just as much sense. The fetus or child can't live on its own before that point, etc. etc.

I see no biblical reason to arbitrarily pick conception over, say implantation. Sure there may be a logical reason (as we discussed on page 1), but no biblical reason that I have seen. So far I have seen more biblical support for the "blood" argument (7 weeks) and even the "breathe" argument (3rd Trimester or even birth) then arbitrarily picking the point of conception.

JSN,

Interesting. I have never looked at it from that perspective.
I am not going to attempt to be a judge on this subject, but I do have my opinion and will hold firm for now. You have introduced something new for me on this topic and it is worth discussing. I will re-read your opening comments and study it out for myself.
But for me to completely understand what you are saying, I want to make sure I have it correct. Are you saying that:
1. Life does not begin until on or about the 7th week? if so, then
2. It is ok and/or acceptable to remove the child before that time because it, has no life?
3. God will be indifferent about this because there was no blood and no actual life?

If there is more I would be interested to hear it and if I have it wrong, I do appologize. If I do not have the correct understanding to what you are saying, please let me know.

God bless!

 

[Joe]

Thanks for the verses, Joe. The Exodus verse seems a little stronger as far as being applicable to when life exists. However, even there the discussion is about a woman with child such that were she injured she might give birth early.

Sorry to do this backwards. Here is my post you replied to-

If men strive, and hurt a women with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life Ex.21:22-23

The Lord considers a women with child to be pregnant. So they are interchangable-pregnant automatically means with child, so whether it has developed it's own blood doesn't appear to be relevant. In the Lord's eyes, this is a child, meaning it is also a person with blood

You seemed to agree with the first part of the verse, then seemed to retract it going off in some direction regarding how far along the woman is yet offered no scriptural support backing up that the Lord cares how far along a woman is. Except with regards to criminal justice, maybe that was your main point. Sorry, i am kinda tired.

To reiterate, the verse calls a pregnant woman with child.

A child is a person, though a person is not necessarily the Lord's criteria.

I'll leave with it seems we need to view a woman with child in the manner God views it. He doesn't care how far along she is with regards to this.

Also, if we attempt to murder someone, and this person is only maimed, we will be prosecuted.
If we attempt to murder someone, and we succeed (they die), we will be proscuted MUCH harsher.

You may want to compare that to the Exodus verse in the context of the criminal justice system instead of comparing it to "how pregnant God thinks she is or whether the child can live on it's own" though they overlap.

Hope this makes sense :saint:

 

[Outsider]

I am not a medical person, so help me out with this.

Approximately when does the heart start beating?

 

[Joe]

I am not a medical person, so help me out with this.

Approximately when does the heart start beating?

About the 18th day of conception

 

[jsn9333]

I'm not claiming to know for sure when life begins because the Scriptures don't plainly and clearly approach the topic as in "life starts at exactly the point X." So reasonable people can disagree. They need to decide what they believe and then try to obey what they think the Holy Spirit is leading them to believe through the Word.

But yes, for the reasons stated earlier, what you list below seems to me to have much more biblical support then picking conception a the point where life begins.

With one exception: I don't think God is indifferent to anything. Just like one would say contraception is not a sin because it is not ending a life, so also it seems abortion 3 days after contraception is not a sin (or even up to around 7 weeks). That doesn't mean God is indifferent to either contraception or abortion... or anything.

Another position I think has biblical support is the position that life is breathed into a person by God. That could lead someone to believe life doesn't start until air is breathed (birth) or until amniotic fluid is breathed (third trimester). But given that the "blood" passage could mean life starts much earlier then either birth or the third trimester, I think that is the safest bet to go with. So until about 7 weeks the zygot and embryo is actually part of its mothers life (it uses her blood)... it is not its own life yet. The life is in the blood.

JSN,

Are you saying that:
1. Life does not begin until on or about the 7th week? if so, then
2. It is ok and/or acceptable to remove the child before that time because it, has no life?
3. God will be indifferent about this because there was no blood and no actual life?

 

[jsn9333]

The problem is that the verse you cite does not specifically define "with child." Actually, it doesn't define "pregnant" either. In truth, either phrase ("with child" or "pregnant") could be used according to the greek lexicon. If the passage did specifically define what "with child" or "pregnant" means, there wouldn't be this debate. Does it mean from conception... from implantation.... from blood type generation.... 2nd trimester.... 3rd? That is the whole thing we're trying to figure out. So this verse actually begs the question.

The point I made is that "with child" had a specific meaning to the people then. They didn't have urine tests, so for them "with child" did not mean when the home-kit turns blue or pink or whatever. They didn't know what conception was, medically. They didn't know what implantation was. They didn't know when a baby got its own blood type. They knew when a lady started showing that she had a baby inside her. That is why I say that, in the passage, it seems to mean the woman was "showing"... otherwise how would they have known she was with child?

I will say this though, the verse you're citing does seem to be a good one to use against the position that life doesn't start until a child is actually born breathing air. It seems to be saying "If you injure a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but everything turns out alright... then you just pay a fine. But if the baby dies, then you have to die as well." Is that what you see it as saying? If so, then that seems to be saying the child in the womb was to be treated as a life, because "life for life."

Sorry to do this backwards. Here is my post you replied to-

You seemed to agree with the first part of the verse, then seemed to retract it going off in some direction regarding how far along the woman is yet offered no scriptural support backing up that the Lord cares how far along a woman is. Except with regards to criminal justice, maybe that was your main point. Sorry, i am kinda tired.

To reiterate, the verse calls a pregnant woman with child.

A child is a person, though a person is not necessarily the Lord's criteria.

I'll leave with it seems we need to view a woman with child in the manner God views it. He doesn't care how far along she is with regards to this.

 

[LeBuick]

If men strive, and hurt a women with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life Ex.21:22-23

If you look closer at this verse you will see it more supports the position that life does NOT begin at conception. It says if you hurt a woman who has a child in her womb and the fruit of the womb is destroyed you shall be punished. However, if mischief follows, in other words, if the child was fully formed as in ready for birth or if the woman looses her life because of the hurt then it is considered murder. The punishment is then life for life.

Look closely guys, why are there two different punishments if both equal life?

 

[Joe]

If you look closer at this verse you will see it more supports the position that life does NOT begin at conception. It says if you hurt a woman who has a child in her womb and the fruit of the womb is destroyed you shall be punished. However, if mischief follows, in other words, if the child was fully formed as in ready for birth or if the woman looses her life because of the hurt then it is considered murder. The punishment is then life for life.

Look closely guys, why are there two different punishments if both equal life?

Good point... Yet it still uses the term "with child" right up front to establish how the Lord views a fetus thru a 9 month old child. Both are child. That is what I get hung up on.

It seems both fall under Thou Shall Not kill because both are considered a child.

Yet the criminal penalty as you noted, is different

I think all of us would agree that an 8 week old fetus being killed is less painful (for mother and baby) than an almost fully formed baby at 8 1/2 months. It is also less risk to the Mothers health when she looses it earlier on.

So that might play into what constitutes the "levels of prosecution" -based upon the "levels developing of life"

 

[jsn9333]

If you look closer at this verse you will see it more supports the position that life does NOT begin at conception. It says if you hurt a woman who has a child in her womb and the fruit of the womb is destroyed you shall be punished. However, if mischief follows, in other words, if the child was fully formed as in ready for birth or if the woman looses her life because of the hurt then it is considered murder. The punishment is then life for life.

Look closely guys, why are there two different punishments if both equal life?

The problem words in this passage are mischief and "fruit departs". What do they mean?

I read "fruit departs from her" to mean that the baby leaves her womb early (premature birth). Like fruit falling off the vine a little bit early, before it would naturally do so. And I tended to see "mischief" as meaning either injury or death to the baby.

So if hitting a woman causes her to give birth early, but the baby is not injured or killed, then you just pay the woman damages (for the stress you caused her by hitting and hurting her and causing the premature birth). If, however, the baby is caused to be born early and is dead or injured... then the penalties listed are "life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise." (verses 24-25).

I'm just not sure I agree with your interpretation of the verse.

I don't think this verse says life does not start at conception any more then it says life does start at conception. I don't think this verse has anything to do with conception. When the pregnancy or "with child" period began is not mentioned. The passage is about a woman who is known to be pregnant, and is so far along in pregnancy that hitting her causes the child to be born prematurely. If the woman were only a few weeks pregnant at the time, they people of her day would not even know she was "with child" or called her "pregnant", and would not even recognize the miscarriage or premature birth for what it was.

 

[LeBuick]

It seems both fall under Thou Shall Not kill because both are considered a child.

I don't think so in either case. If you look at the verse closely, the offence in either case is against the husband. They get the punishment the husband decides. The difference being he can choose death if the fetus is fully developed.

 

[LeBuick]

The problem words in this passage are mischief and "fruit departs". What do they mean?

I read "fruit departs from her" to mean that the baby leaves her womb early (premature birth). Like fruit falling off the vine a little bit early, before it would naturally do so. And I tended to see "mischief" as meaning either injury or death to the baby.

So if hitting a woman causes her to give birth early, but the baby is not injured or killed, then you just pay the woman damages (for the stress you caused her by hitting and hurting her and causing the premature birth). If, however, the baby is caused to be born early and is dead or injured... then the penalties listed are "life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise." (verses 24-25).

I'm just not sure I agree with your interpretation of the verse.

I don't think this verse says life does not start at conception any more then it says life does start at conception. I don't think this verse has anything to do with conception. When the pregnancy or "with child" period began is not mentioned. The passage is about a woman who is known to be pregnant, and is so far along in pregnancy that hitting her causes the child to be born prematurely. If the woman were only a few weeks pregnant at the time, they people of her day would not even know she was "with child" or called her "pregnant", and would not even recognize the miscarriage or premature birth for what it was.

To be honest, I never looked at this verse as you do but I have to admit I could not dispute your view Biblically. I decided to do something I rarely do and looked in several commentaries I have in my office. I was surprised to see most didn't deal with this passage. The only one I could find was Adam Clarke who had this to say;

And hurt a woman with child—As a posterity among the Jews was among the peculiar promises of their covenant, and as every man had some reason to think that the Messiah should spring from his family, therefore any injury done to a woman with child, by which the fruit of her womb might be destroyed, was considered a very heavy offense; and as the crime was committed principally against the husband, the degree of punishment was left to his discretion. But if mischief followed, that is, if the child had been fully formed, and was killed by this means, or the woman lost her life in consequence, then the punishment was as in other cases of murder—the person was put to death; Exodus 21:23.

He is more in line with my understanding however I am the first to say commentaries are the views of the writer and are not the Gospel or the Word of God so take this as you will. I want to stew on your view for a while. Interesting view.

 

[jsn9333]

You're right about commentaries. I've seen commentaries that define "mischief" as anything bad occurring to the child... not just death. They also have translated "fruit departs" as "baby is born prematurely," and the NIV translates this way as well.

Again though, I agree a commentary (and in some cases the NIV) is just the opinion of the author/translator. Translating "mischief" more broadly just makes more sense to me given the fact that the variety of penalties for the act listed range from death (for death) to injury (for injury).

To be honest, I never looked at this verse as you do but I have to admit I could not dispute your view Biblically. I decided to do something I rarely do and looked in several commentaries I have in my office. I was surprised to see most didn't deal with this passage. The only one I could find was Adam Clarke who had this to say . . . But if mischief followed, that is, if the child had been fully formed, and was killed by this means, or the woman lost her life in consequence, then the punishment was as in other cases of murder—the person was put to death . . . He is more in line with my understanding however I am the first to say commentaries are the views of the writer and are not the Gospel or the Word of God so take this as you will. I want to stew on your view for a while. Interesting view.

 

[LeBuick]

You're right about commentaries. I've seen commentaries that define "mischief" as anything bad occurring to the child... not just death. They also have translated "fruit departs" as "baby is born prematurely," and the NIV translates this way as well.

Again though, I agree a commentary (and in some cases the NIV) is just the opinion of the author/translator. Translating "mischief" more broadly just makes more sense to me given the fact that the variety of penalties for the act listed range from death (for death) to injury (for injury).

Can't argue against that... :thumbs:

 

[Magnetic Poles]

Can you glorify God with an abortion? Or, can an abortion glorify God?

Maybe all an abortion does is cater to fleshly desires and prevent the course of nature. Maybe it doesn't matter when 'life' begins, abortion is wrong anyway.

By this faulty logic, antibiotics are evil, since they prevent the course of nature. Same with surgery. Same with automobiles, airplanes, etc. Same with trimming my toenails or cutting my hair.

 

[Joe]

I don't think so in either case. If you look at the verse closely, the offence in either case is against the husband. They get the punishment the husband decides. The difference being he can choose death if the fetus is fully developed.

Alright but I don't read it that way

Here is the NIV translation, I will break it down verse by verse

Exodus 21:22-27
]22 "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise"

Verse 22 "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows."
Otherwise, ONLY if the baby is born and there seems nothing wrong with it (unharmed) the husband decides the penalty. Maybe it's as simple as the wife walking right into a brawl, and it was an accident so he decides to let it go without a penalty.


Verse 23 "But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life"
Life for Life. There is no distinction upon the development of the fetus/baby. The Lord considers both Life. It says if the baby/fetus or mother dies, then the perpitrator must die also.


Verse 24-25-"eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise"
Example: if the baby is born blind in one eye, the husband ensures the perpitrator is blined in one eye. Baby is born with a broken leg, then the perp is also to have his leg broken etc...Makes no distinction upon the babies development, and the Husband must follow these commands.

So he can't choose death "if the fetus is fully developed" as you say. There is no distinction upon any penalty being based upon the fetus/babies development.


And the offense is not against the husband imo. He is the head of his wife. He is to protect and care for her. Remember "her body is not her own" as a verse states. With her hormones likely out of whack due to the pregnancy itself, and now the stress of the trauma against her body and the life inside her belly, she isn't in a good frame of mind to make decisions. I enjoy your posts, learn a lot from them. But this time I think you are way off.

 

[Joe]

To summarize, the Lord considers a pregnant woman to carry "life"

THAT is a distinction in itself

He calls this life "a child"

So should we

 

[LeBuick]

So he can't choose death "if the fetus is fully developed" as you say. There is no distinction upon any penalty being based upon the fetus/babies development..

As I stated earlier in the thread, I can see you and jsn9333 view of this passage even though I disagree. If you read various versions and various commentators I see some agreeing with each view. IOW, this is one of those things we'll just have to understand better in the by and by. It's hard for me to believe God would leave something as important as this issue to an arguable passage.

The way I studied this passage, the passage is there because the offence had more to do with the potential the woman might be carrying the messiah. All of Israel was looking to the coming of the Messiah. As many have preached the sermon before, "what if Mary had of had an abortion or a mis-carriage?" My answer, the fetus would have lived for He still had work and a purpose in the Will of the Father.

If it is God's Will the fetus have life, it will have life and no Man on earth can change that for God is the only one who can give or take life away.

 

[Allan]

To summarize, the Lord considers a pregnant woman to carry "life"

THAT is a distinction in itself

He calls this life "a child"

So should we

Can't biblically argue with that

 

[Allan]

And hurt a woman with child—As a posterity among the Jews was among the peculiar promises of their covenant, and as every man had some reason to think that the Messiah should spring from his family, therefore any injury done to a woman with child, by which the fruit of her womb might be destroyed, was considered a very heavy offense; and as the crime was committed principally against the husband, the degree of punishment was left to his discretion. But if mischief followed, that is, if the child had been fully formed, and was killed by this means, or the woman lost her life in consequence, then the punishment was as in other cases of murder—the person was put to death; Exodus 21:23.

Not that the point I am about to make really has any bering on the discussion but ..
Actually, Adam Clarke is somewhat incorrect on this point (the one embolded) OR maybe he just didn't elaborate enough on it.

He seems to 'presume' that because the punishment is left up to the husband then the offence was committed against him. In truth, this is not really accurate only because the husband was the head and therefore the authority of the home. All things had to go through him. For example, if a wife made a vow/promise and the husband did not know about it, he could void that vow or allow his wife to be bound to it. If his children were hurt by another, the children do not determind the punishment to be given but their Father does. Just as the incident committed is not against the father but his children so it is with respect to the unborn child being hurt or killed. The offence is against the child who is under their fathers authority and therefore being their spiritual head, it falls to him to mete out the proper punishment that happened to his family. And as Adam Clarke concludes if death occures (including miscarage or premature death of the unborn) they must die according to the Law against a murderer (this includes a woman who could be 2 weeks alone with child). The important thing to remember scripture ALWAYS states that when a woman was pregnant there are not 2 phases that scripture state about the pregnancy (one the forming and the other life) but one - she is with CHILD meaning God sees it from inception as a person/life.