Life is in the blood...

[Allan]

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.

What??

I have already address the 'offence against the husband' so I'll leave that at bay. However the last sentence is not even insinuated in scritpure. There is nothing in the scripture that says 'he can choose death IF the fetus (?) is fully developed (?)'.

If the woman looses the child during pregnancy scripture states the offender is to be judged as a murderer, not that the husband chooses if he wants judge him or not as a murderer (Ex 21:23). Also there is not one passage of scripture to be found where even alludes to anything about an unborn child being 'fully formed' much less a 'fetus'. Scripture never calls the unborn anything but 'a child' at all points during a womans pregnancy, whether 1 week along or 9 months.

I went back to look at who had the passage I was quoting from and noticed that Joe already answered pretty much the same as I just did. You can tell I haven't read the whole thread.. :BangHead: ... lol.

 

[LeBuick]

she is with CHILD meaning God sees it from inception as a person/life.

This is your view or opinion and not something God specifically says in His Word. You are making assumptions. I agree I also make assumptions when I believe life begins with your first breath. This is my view and I believe the Bible supports it.

Secondly, Adam Clarke agrees with my view regarding the fully formed fetus. Please read his view again. I am not saying he is right but he does appear to see the samethings in this verse as I see.

Also, you are applying a lot of what we know today when you say fetus vs fully developed baby vs inception etc.... Trust me when I say I was speaking in more of a premitive sense of recognition. A woman could have a mis-carriage in the early stages of pregnancy and the man or she for that matter would never know. For one, there was no rabbit or accurate testing for pregnancy. Secondly, the loss of blood would make her unclean and so not something she would not openly talk about. She would probably more write it off to her monthly etc...

Also, men had more than one wife back then so they were not as in tune to their spouse as we are today.

In Bible days a woman was a man's property. Not partner or equal or anything like today. You couldn't offend a woman or a child, the offence had to be against the man. The man bought the woman from her father so they were his properties. This is why the offence was against him.

As I stated before, the biblical significance of this verse has to do with every man wanting to be the father of the Messiah. If the fetus was developed enough to tell it was a female, chances are nothing would happen to the offender... Excuse my bluntness, woman were disposable and not valued back then. A woman and/or child dying during child birth was common.

 

[Allan]

This is your view or opinion and not something God specifically says in His Word. You are making assumptions. I agree I also make assumptions when I believe life begins with your first breath. This is my view and I believe the Bible supports it.

Secondly, Adam Clarke agrees with my view regarding the fully formed fetus. Please read his view again. I am not saying he is right but he does appear to see the samethings in this verse as I see.

Also, you are applying a lot of what we know today when you say fetus vs fully developed baby vs inception etc.... Trust me when I say I was speaking in more of a premitive sense of recognition. A woman could have a mis-carriage in the early stages of pregnancy and the man or she for that matter would never know. For one, there was no rabbit or accurate testing for pregnancy. Secondly, the loss of blood would make her unclean and so not something she would not openly talk about. She would probably more write it off to her monthly etc...

Also, men had more than one wife back then so they were not as in tune to their spouse as we are today.

In Bible days a woman was a man's property. Not partner or equal or anything like today. You couldn't offend a woman or a child, the offence had to be against the man. The man bought the woman from her father so they were his properties. This is why the offence was against him.

As I stated before, the biblical significance of this verse has to do with every man wanting to be the father of the Messiah. If the fetus was developed enough to tell it was a female, chances are nothing would happen to the offender... Excuse my bluntness, woman were disposable and not valued back then. A woman and/or child dying during child birth was common.

Lebuik, with all due respect you most of the above speculation, postulation, and assumption.

Unfortunately scripture is 'specific' and it is what I used to describe what God says in His word about the unborn. Can you show me ANY other wording for the 'thing' (?) in the womb that God uses other than 'a child'? I couldn't find anything either How can it be an 'assumption' when that is exactly what God calls it - bar none. Man in scripture is a living being, woman in scripture is a living being, and so is a child. Do you really want to contend that John (the Baptist) while still in his mothers womb was dead or lifeless when the Holy Spirit filled him? Does the Holy Spirit fill the non-living?

There is nothing in scripture that states life begins with your first breath. That makes no sense LeBuick. Being serious here, how can the child 'draw' it's first breath if it has no life by which to cause the body to 'draw it'? How can that which is not alive move in the womb? God Himself calls the unborn a child, meaning a person, meaning they are alive. Even science proves a unborn is alive before it ever draws it's first breath air after exiting the womb. I'm sorry but there isn't any scripture given that makes such a statement. If you want to use the verse speaking of God making Adam whereby He breathed the breath of life into him, that is not refering to simply air but his spirit, and when it entered his body it THEN became alive. Before that the body that lay there was no more than a empty corpse, unmoving and unable to draw a breath.

Besides the unborn 'does' breathe even in the womb, just not oxygen but oxygen rich amnionic fluid. You were either with child or you were not, there was no in-between.

A woman could have a mis-carriage in the early stages of pregnancy and the man or she for that matter would never know. For one, there was no rabbit or accurate testing for pregnancy.

Where do you get this from? They had ways of knowing just as we do today only different. However, a woman knows when something is different and there are more signs of being pregnant that just a missed minstral cyle. My wife, sisters, cousins all knew when they was pregnant long before they took any tests (appoximately 3 weeks along) and could even tell you when "most likely" it happened and according to their doctors they were always right! But I can tell you this as well, that any woman who wasn't sure if she was pregant and lost it, knew instantly they 'were' but no more.

Secondly, the loss of blood would make her unclean and so not something she would not openly talk about. She would probably more write it off to her monthly etc...

Now that is just silly. First, if they hid it they would be living in sin and causing everyone who came in contact to them to be in sin. Secondly, you are taking a quantum leap by such a assumption as though they didn't care or desire to be god-fearing and righteous in their ways before the Lord. You having absolutly nothing by which to base such an accusational statement other than what you think they might be thinking and maybe what they might possibly have done...

Also, men had more than one wife back then so they were not as in tune to their spouse as we are today.

Again, a quantum assumption. First not all men had multiple wives actaully not many had multiple wives. Fact is, most of them were of those who in prosperity to afford to keep more than one.

In Bible days a woman was a man's property. Not partner or equal or anything like today.

This is abosolutely untrue and biblically they were not nor ever a mans property. Man had authority but a woman was his partner/help-meet. She bought and sold, could have their own business but according to Gods law the man was the one of authority and who God would hold accountable for all things of the family. God never determinded that women were mens property, and the fact that the Jews sought to live by the Law of God would make God to be the one who made of women, mechandise to be bought or sold.

You couldn't offend a woman or a child, the offence had to be against the man. The man bought the woman from her father so they were his properties. This is why the offence was against him.

Where do you get this from?? The offence is ALWAYS against the one involved but all matters had to go through the biblical headship. You can not find in the scripture anywhere that alludes to a woman being a mans proporty because he bought her. He is not buying her but giving the father compensation for taking to himself of such a precious portion of the fathers home and family, and that ONLY by HER express permission and agreement. Also in the same manner she gives to the groom a dowry of great price as well.

As I stated before, the biblical significance of this verse has to do with every man wanting to be the father of the Messiah. If the fetus was developed enough to tell it was a female, chances are nothing would happen to the offender... Excuse my bluntness, woman were disposable and not valued back then. A woman and/or child dying during child birth was common

Again, you couldn't be more wrong. Some men treated their wives in such a way but that was not the norm. It was a pagan practice to treat woman and children in such a way. Remember they were obedient to the Law, and to say woman had no value is to say that God gave them none. On the contrary, however women were to be treated as queens, to not have to work/labor as the man does,. to be taken care of completely, and loved above others. To be his joy and pride so to speak. Prov 31. for example

 

[jsn9333]

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

Scripture never calls the unborn anything but 'a child' at all points during a womans pregnancy, whether 1 week along or 9 months.

Why do you presume that the author of Exodus subscribed to our common 20th and 21st century century definition of "pregnancy"? What evidence do you have that "pregnant", for them, specifically referred to the time from conception onward (as opposed to the time after intimacy itself onward, or from implantation into the womb onward, or after heart formation onward, or blood type formation onward, or from when she began showing onward, etc.). I'm having trouble believing the ancients would've even known a woman one, two, or even perhaps 6 weeks along was pregnant, much less that they would have had such a medically and scientifically specific definition as we have today. This seems to be a case of you imputing modern cultural norms onto a past culture and onto Scripture itself.

I mean, where does the Bible ever refer to a woman who is "1 week along"? You seem to be using that phrase as if it is Scripture.

Additionally, it seems that the word used in the Exodus passage we've been examining can be translated "pregnant" *or* "with child". You seem to be emphasizing "with *child*" a lot in your arguments, and I"m wondering what makes you think that is a more accurate translation then simply "pregnant". I don't think "with child" harms my position, but I"m just curious as to your emphasis on that particular translation of the Hebrew.

Finally, I agree that most likely a fetus in a woman who is pregnant (by which I mean showing that she has a baby inside her... for that is what pregnancy meant to the ancients) and which therefore already has its own blood type is probably alive and is to be considered a person. I think this exodus passage is good evidence against the argument that life starts at first breath of air. That being said, I don't see where in this passage this state of "pregnancy" is said to begin at conception as opposed to any other arbitrarily chosen point in the many stages that make up the reproductive cycle. And, in fact, other passages show that life most likely starts later then conception.

 

[Allan]

Why do you presume that the author of Exodus subscribed to our common 20th and 21st century century definition of "pregnancy"? What evidence do you have that "pregnant", for them, specifically referred to the time from conception onward (as opposed to the time after intimacy itself onward, or from implantation into the womb onward, or after heart formation onward, or blood type formation onward, or from when she began showing onward, etc.). I'm having trouble believing the ancients would've even known a woman one, two, or even perhaps 6 weeks along was pregnant, much less that they would have had such a medically and scientifically specific definition as we have today. This seems to be a case of you imputing modern cultural norms onto a past culture and onto Scripture itself.

Actually just the opposite. The defintion hasn't changed at all, just what we know regarding it's growth stages.
Secondly, scripture states in Hebrew and Greek 'with Child' and not pregnant. We can use the term pregnant as a dynamic equivalent but it is not a literal rendering of the known ancient texts.

You are right about one thing, scripture does not distiquish between 1 week or 9 months and that was my point. Scripture states they were "with Child" and it always is in refence to the act of 'carrying' an unborn, thus the term 'with'. Therefore it does not nor has it ever refered to the time of copulation onward.

Another thing, there is a wealth of knowledge archeologically (or should I say anthropologically)regarding historical positions of what a culture or group considered to be 'preganant'. Funny thing is they are all the same. If one was pregant, no matter how early or late, they were with child even in pagan civilations.

You seem to be emphasizing "with *child*" a lot in your arguments, and I"m wondering what makes you think that is a more accurate translation then simply "pregnant". I don't think "with child" harms my position, but I"m just curious as to your emphasis on that particular translation of the Hebrew.

Because that is the most literal translation from the Hebrew texts and yes, I read Hebrew Again we could use the generic term 'pregnant' following the dynamic equivolent form but the literal rendering is actaully ' with child'. Do you know of any other biblical wording used to describe a woman who is carrying an unborn baby still??? If you said no, your right because there isn't one.

I think this exodus passage is good evidence against the argument that life starts at first breath of air.

Yes, we agree here.

That being said, I don't see where in this passage this state of "pregnancy" is said to begin at conception as opposed to any other arbitrarily chosen point in the many stages that make up the reproductive cycle. And, in fact, other passages show that life most likely starts later then conception.

To my knowledge there aren't any passages in scripture which show life starts later than conception. The fact that scripture consistantly utilizes the phrase "with child" encompasses all gestational periods of it growth, because it refers to the 'being' itself as a child. It is a specific declaration of the being through out the general pregnancy (all aspects of it) which precludes any other point of contention. it is a child at any and all points of the gestational formation and that declaration comes from God Himself. Thus if it is a child it is alive.

 

[rbell]

so let's just throw out all medical knowledge we have, JSN, and practice medicine the way the Bible characters did.

This is one of the more convoluted arguments I've seen on the BB in a while.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Ancients with regular periods would have known by about 3 weeks after conception if they were pregnant.

Ovulation occurs around day 14 after the last period and conception would have to occur in the few days after that. They would notice a skipped period about 2-3 weeks after that.

To confuse things, modern medical dating of a pregnancy starts from the last period which is actually 2 weeks before conception. So when a baby is born at 40 weeks (which is the average), it is actually only 38 weeks from conception. Messed up, eh?

 

[jsn9333]

so let's just throw out all medical knowledge we have, JSN, and practice medicine the way the Bible characters did.

Who said anything about practicing medicine? All I said is that, barring evidence to the contrary, we should not assume the Israelites held to our precise medical definitions of words.

If you think one must either stop practicing modern medicine or assume the Israelites had all the medical knowledge and the same medical definitions we have, then feel free to make whatever assumptions you must and stop seeing doctors. But in my opinion we can continue to grow our modern medical sciences while acknowledging nonetheless that the ancients had different medical knowledge available to them then we do. Your position is an ignorant and dangerous one, in my opinion.

 

[Rubato 1]

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.

Fair enough, even though there is a BIG difference between an abortion and the things you listed, which without exception are men enhancing nature, not messing with it. We use natural chemicals in medicine, we use natural resources in airplane wings, even toenail clippers.
The point of the post is 'does an abortion glorify God?' The answer was already discussed, but you have chosen to duck that question by focusing on an arguable supporting point (which, incidentally is very slick and is what I would do if I couldn't answer the question satisfatorily...).

 

[jsn9333]

Ancients with regular periods would have known by about 3 weeks after conception if they were pregnant.

Ovulation occurs around day 14 after the last period and conception would have to occur in the few days after that. They would notice a skipped period about 2-3 weeks after that.

To confuse things, modern medical dating of a pregnancy starts from the last period which is actually 2 weeks before conception. So when a baby is born at 40 weeks (which is the average), it is actually only 38 weeks from conception. Messed up, eh?

Actually, ancients would have know by about 3 weeks after conception that they were late on their period. However, "late" happened all the time without a pregnancy; it is extremely common for women to have quite irregular periods. Even today millions and millions of women have very irregular periods (though many take birth control to create regularity). The ancients didn't have medicine to regulate themselves... they could have even been twice as late and still not known that they were pregnant.

 

[jsn9333]

There may be no direct passages that say life starts later then conception, but there are no direct passages that refer specifically to conception as the beginning either. Exodus seems to indicate life is possible in the womb, but it is referring to a woman who is said to be "pregnant". "Pregnant" is not defined as dealing with conception anymore then it is as dealing with implantation or any other later or earlier stage in the reproductive cycle.

And your "being" argument doesn't do much for your position. We are referred to as "beings" who can be "known" from eternity past, as I pointed out in my original post. Yet you are not saying life starts from eternity past (and therefore that contraception is murder). You are arbitrarily picking conception as the point where God said life begins. The Scriptures give no such indication.

The ancients could not have defined "pregnant" for at least 3.5 weeks after intimacy, or about 3 weeks after conception, or 2.5 weeks after implantation... because they had no way of knowing someone was pregnant during that time. And even after about 3 weeks, they had no way of knowing if they were just late (which was and is a very normal occurrence) or pregnant.

The Scriptures do not directly approach the topic of when life begins. The best I can find is that the life of a being is said to exist in that beings blood... and an embryo does not get its own blood until around 7 weeks. If we, as Christians, are going to state with authority when we believe life begins and try to hold non-Christian citizens to our position with legal enforcement... we should at least have some fairly direct Scriptures to back up our position. This is especially the case if we are going to be drawing lines so specific that we say contraception is fine but "morning after" abortion is murder. There are no Scriptures that discern between life starting at intimacy, or at conception, or implantation... or even between implantation and weeks later. I believe the passage I'm relying on is the most direct passage concerning what life consists of, or what is required for it to exist.

The Exodus passage deals with a woman known to the ancient Israelites as "pregnant." She would have to be pretty well along to know if her being hit caused her to miscarry a child... because otherwise there would be no way to discern if she miscarried or just had a late period.

Finally, as an aside, the greek word for pregnant is "hareh", and strong's greek lexicon says it means "pregnant". I'm not saying "with child" is a poor translation, and I have no problem with translating it that way. Either way it doesn't effect the Biblical position I've taken. However, I still don't see why you say "with child" is a more accurate term then "pregnant". Either term seems fine.

Actually just the opposite. The defintion hasn't changed at all, just what we know regarding it's growth stages.
Secondly, scripture states in Hebrew and Greek 'with Child' and not pregnant. We can use the term pregnant as a dynamic equivalent but it is not a literal rendering of the known ancient texts.
. . . .
To my knowledge there aren't any passages in scripture which show life starts later than conception. The fact that scripture consistantly utilizes the phrase "with child" encompasses all gestational periods of it growth, because it refers to the 'being' itself as a child. It is a specific declaration of the being through out the general pregnancy (all aspects of it) which precludes any other point of contention. it is a child at any and all points of the gestational formation and that declaration comes from God Himself. Thus if it is a child it is alive.

 

[Palatka51]

Abortion on demand at any stage of human development is a murderous craft. A noble Christ honoring endeavor, NOT! I for one will not be numbered with all of it's enablers. :tear: 49,000,000 dead souls to date and still counting at the daily average of 1,600+.

 

[jsn9333]

Abortion on demand at any stage of human development is a murderous craft. A noble Christ honoring endeavor, NOT! I for one will not be numbered with all of it's enablers. :tear: 49,000,000 dead souls to date and still counting at the daily average of 1,600+.

Your opinion is completely off the topic of this thread. The topic of this thread is to inspect the *biblical* support for defining life as beginning at conception (as opposed to at intimacy, or at implantation, or at several weeks of pregnancy, etc.). You have offered no biblical support for your position.

You are entitled to your opinion about when life begins, don't get me wrong. But this thread is about the opinion put forth in the Scriptures.

How many dead souls are there as a result of contraception? If none, then what bible verse (not what logic, but what verse) do you use to say life begins at conception and not at the point one second before conception (or one second after for that matter). Chapter and verse please. I'm assuming if you're willing to call someone a murderer and subject them to the criminal sanctions we have for murder in this country (including the death penalty) that you have some sort of verse to base your judgment on. No? Is no verse needed... just your opinion alone is enough for us to go on?

Also, many if not most chemical forms of conception also use chemicals to decrease the risk of implantation (ending the pregnancy after conception in the event ovulation occurred). That is murder according to your definition, yet seen as fine by the majority of conservative Christians who then hypocritically say they believe early abortion is murder because it occurs after conception!

This country will be a better place, with a lot less infighting and strife, once Christians start reading, thinking about, and *relying* on the Scriptures instead of their own traditional beliefs.

 

[Palatka51]

Your premise of "Life is in the blood" is just not Biblically sound as you try to relate it to abortion. You seek to enable the murderous craft by saying that it is ok in God's eye as long as there is no blood involved. I have already posted scripture concerning why I believe that conception is the moment that human life is in it's first stage of development.
The Bible's reference to life is in the blood is a commonsense reaction to the fact that if something is bleed out it ceases to live. That you are not to cook or stew an animal in it's own blood or milk. You are not to eat the blood. No where in God's Word does it relate to the beginnings of human life.
As far as contraceptives are concerned if it causes a failure to to connect to the uterine wall, then that is the death of a human life. God is the judge of all things. I know that I am on the right side of this issue. However if I am not, then what harm have I caused, save to have raised your blood pressure. If you are wrong then it is you that must face His judgment. I'm willing to wait to find out that I am right are you? Meanwhile the blood of 49,000,000 lives are not on my hands.

 

[jsn9333]

If you meant to refer to the Scripture you cited previously, then you certainly didn't make that clear. And I'll just respond with the same response I gave when you cited it the first time on page 2.

What I wrote the first time you referenced this exact Scripture was, "...to say, "If Sarah had not conceived, there would not had been an Isaac," is true but not relevant. Because if Sarah had not been intimate with her husband, then Isaac would not have have been born either. But that doesn't mean life starts at intimacy. If Sarah had not worn her special nighty to give a cue to the hubby that night then they wouldn't have been intimate and conception wouldn't have occured... but that doesn't mean life starts at dressing time. Just showing something had to happen in order for life to occur doesn't mean that it is the *definition* of the beginning of life."

You're only response was that you didn't want to see an old woman in a nightie. While that may be understandable, that isn't a biblical response. The only other response you seem to have given after you have been shown the verse you stated does not support your conclusion is to repeat "abortion at any stage after conception is murder". Again, both responses are off topic. You provided no more biblical support or response my refutation of the applicability of the verse. If you're going to respond, respond to what I said about *the verse* you cited. This thread is about what the verses say, that is what we're trying to get at.

The point is you arbitrarily pick conception as the beginning of life. The story of Sarah conceiving does not specifically say conception is when life began any more then it says intimacy or implantation is the time. Just because the Bible says conception happens does not mean that the Bible says life starts at conception. Otherwise you would have to say life starts at intimacy because the Bible says intimacy happens... or at implantation because implantation happens... or at birth because birth happens. , etc., etc. The verse you cited has nothing to do with when life begins.

I"m not saying abortion before 7 weeks is not murder because there is no blood at all. By all means there is blood nourishing the zygote and then the embryo... but the blood is the mother's at that point. The life of a creature is in the blood, and before 7 weeks the zygote and embryo do not have their own blood and, hence, they do not yet have their own life. Is the verse about life being in the blood of a being indirect in its application to abortion? Yes, I admit it is. But it is at least something. I've seen no verse saying conception is the beginning of life any more then saying intimacy is or implantation is.

If you are wrong, what harm have you caused? You have called people murderers who are not... you have condemned the innocent to either death or a lifetime in prison (depending on what you think the just punishment for murder is). You need biblical support before calling someone a murderer. So far, you have not provided any biblical support (or at least you have refused to respond to the showing that the verse you did cite has nothing to do with supporting your conclusion... other then saying you don't want to see an old woman in a nightie... hardly a biblical response).

Your premise of "Life is in the blood" is just not Biblically sound as you try to relate it to abortion. You seek to enable the murderous craft by saying that it is ok in God's eye as long as there is no blood involved. I have already posted scripture concerning why I believe that conception is the moment that human life is in it's first stage of development.
The Bible's reference to life is in the blood is a commonsense reaction to the fact that if something is bleed out it ceases to live. That you are not to cook or stew an animal in it's own blood or milk. You are not to eat the blood. No where in God's Word does it relate to the beginnings of human life.
As far as contraceptives are concerned if it causes a failure to to connect to the uterine wall, then that is the death of a human life. God is the judge of all things. I know that I am on the right side of this issue. However if I am not, then what harm have I caused, save to have raised your blood pressure. If you are wrong then it is you that must face His judgment. I'm willing to wait to find out that I am right are you? Meanwhile the blood of 49,000,000 lives are not on my hands.

 

[DHK]

Why do so many conservatives say life starts "at conception"? Aren't conservative Christians supposed to rely on the Bible for their Truth? Are they relying on the Bible in taking this "conception" position? If so, how?

The blood is the life. Deut. 12:23
For the life of a creature is in the blood. Lev. 17:11

Is it possible that pro-abortion advocates were actually partially right in that, for a certain amount of time, an embryo is really part of it's mother's life instead of being its own life? (just not until live birth, as they said, but only until 7 weeks!?) If not, then why, biblically speaking, does life not exist before conception but it does afterwards?

Let's quote Leviticus 17:11 again:

Leviticus 17:11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.

The life of the FLESH is in the blood, not life in and of itself. Much of the animal kingdom exists without blood. Everything from microscopic animals (amoeba, paramecium), insects, worms, etc. They have life, but not blood. It is not necessary to have blood in order to have life.
The medical science during Washington's day thougth that the blood carried disease. Therefore if one got sick they would let out the blood (blood-letting). When Washington got sick that is what they did; they let out his blood. The problem was: they let out too much and Washington died. The Bible is true: the life of the flesh is ihn the blood; not its disease or sickness, as the doctors at that time thought. The blood is a sign of life. Consider the reason why Jesus was pierced, and out flowed blood and water.
The life of the flesh is in the blood; not life per se.

The embryo is always its own life. It gains no sustenance from the mother. Once the egg is penetrated by the sperm one cellular wall is formed and the process of meiosis takes place. Very soon after that meitosis takes place where two daughter cells grow into four, and four into eight, and eight into sixteen. That embryo (now properly called a zygote) is about three days old and has traveled down to the uterus and attached itself to the uterine wall. From there it will continue to grow at avery fast rate. By seven weeks all of its organs will be clearly visible, and it is called a fetus.

God gives life, not when man can see the organs, or determine whether or not it has blood, but when God breathes into it the breathe of life. That is conception. From the time of conception it is evident that growth is taking place. The development of the organs from week one to week seven are evidence of life. Would you destroy the life that God has created, simply because there is no evidence of blood. The embryo or the fetus never receives blood from the mother. It always has its own blood. It is evident that life starts at conception.

 

[Palatka51]

And all the people said, "Amen all glory to God the fashioner of all that lives."

 

[DHK]

Thanks for the verses, Joe.

Psalm 51 is not any more clear then the "I knew you in the womb" verse. The fact that a person was conceived and shaped in the womb doesn't necessarily mean they were alive while being conceived and shaped. Certainly to sin one needs to be a person, but I don't think the sin being referenced is the sin of the fetus. I think the sin of the world and of the mother is being referenced... David is saying he was created in a sinful world. I don't see that as a reference to when life begins or what life consists of.

Leave the sin issue alone and look at the verse.
"...did my mother conceive me.
My mother did conceive me.
David considered himself "me" a person, at the time of conception. That is how the verse is worded. Why else would he use a first person singular pronoun?
He was a person at conception.

Isa. 7:14--A virgin shall conceive, and bring forth a son.
Life starts at conception.

In Matthew the angel told Joseph.
She would conceive by the Holy Ghost.

How was Christ born? When did his life on earth begin? It began at conception. Study in detail the virgin birth of Christ. He came into this world at the time of conception and at no later date. Here is Scripture that cannot be denied. Mary conceived. The Holy Spirit conceived. And nine months later Christ was born. Life starts at conception.

 

[DHK]

At this point, I'm seeing the most support for life starting with the fetus getting its own blood (7 weeks) or with breathing (which could be third trimester or at birth depending if you think air must be the substance being breathed). I don't really see clear support in the Bible for life starting at conception.

At best that is human reasoning and not Biblical reasoning. There is no Scriptural support for this position. You seemed to be influenced by the pro-abortion crowd. There is a multitude of verses which refer to life beginning at conception, not the least of which deal with the virgin birth of Christ.
If Christ had no life before seven weeks then Christ was not fully man, as the Bible declares him to be. Some of his "humanity" was missing.

Since there is some question as to between blood or breath, I think it would be best to go with blood (to be on the safe side). If someone believes abortion after conception (but before 7 weeks) is murder, I don't see any biblical reason why they wouldn't think contraception is murder also. Again, I see logical reasons why... but I don' t see any biblical reason as to why.

Reasons for contraception should not even have to enter this discussion. They are a red herring and deserve a thread on their own.

 

[Joe]

Pretty good case, I'd say.

In fact, maybe the "paternal parents" ought to he hauling the abortioin doctors into court and collecting huge settlements even though they had no intention of marrying or supporting the "maternal parent." The "paternal parent" would certainly be sued by the mother if the child was born, right?

skypair

Hi skypair- I somehow missed this post, just noticed it. You were replying to this verse

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

I have re-read your scinereo and I don't really understand what you are saying. Maybe create a real situation with names, I can be a little slow :saint: