Life is in the blood...

[DHK]

standingfirminChrist,

What do you mean by "conception"? Medical dictionaries define it as fertilization (when the sperm implants into the egg) and also as implantation (when the blastocyst becomes a zygote by implanting into the uterus).

Save yourself the trouble. We speak English, and that is what you prefer as well. Have you tried a simple dictionary of the English language? I will give you a definition from the World Book Dictionary, 1994 ed.

the action or process of conceiving in the womb; a becoming pregnant; When egg and sperm unite at conception, or fertilization, the fertilized egg contains the full number of chromosomes--twenty-three pairs in the himan body ((Sidonie M. Gruenberg).
The fact of being conceived.
The thing conceived; embryo, fetus.

I think that the definition of conception is clear enough and we don't need your confusion added in.

 

[jsn9333]

Palatka51,

When "seed" is used in reference "children" or "descendants" or "sperm"... not "ovum". This is also obvious just from the verses you listed. For example, "I will multiply thy seed exceedingly, that it shall not be numbered for multitude." That verse is not saying "I will give you so many ovums you won't be able to count them all", rather it is saying "I will give you so many descendants you won't be able to count them all." The Hebrew dictionary translates the word to "sperm" or "seed" (which, as seen in the use above refers to descendants). When used in saying the woman "conceived the seed" that is saying she became pregnant from sperm. Otherwise it wouldn't make sense. She can't "conceive" her own egg. She can only become pregnant from an egg that has been transformed into a blastocyst by a sperm (a seed). The Hebrew dictionary translates the word "seed" in your verses to "seed" and to "sperm". Never to ovum. Look it up yourself in a Hebrew dictionary. The reason is because mankind did not know the ovum existed until the 17th century. That is when the first ovum was discovered and described as existing. The Hebrews did not talk about ovums. There is no Hebrew word for "ovum" or "female egg".

That is why "harah", in Hebrew, cannot mean "when sperm meets egg." That is not one of the possible definitions in Hebrew.

I agree, by the way, that the Lord has told women they would become pregnant, that is, they would "harah". But nowhere is "harah" said to be the point that the sperm implants into the egg. You're just not going to find a verse that says that is what "harah" meant. There isn't one in the Bible, trust me... I've read it. I also agree that God has told women what the sex the child they would have would be. But what is the point of pointing that out to me? The fact that God can tell someone the future does not indicate that God is telling them that "harah" means "when sperm implants in egg".

And again (see post to DHK just below this one), even if "harah" is assumed to mean "when sperm meets egg" for the sake of argument... that still doesn't show life starts at "harah".

In response to your 2nd post, sure, it is fair to say they didn't know what a cell was (a red blood cell or any cell for that matter). I'm not sure what your point is. They knew what blood was. They didn't know what an ovum was. They had no idea such a thing existed.

And as far as the embryo/fetus not having its mothers blood... sure, I'll take that as true. Another poster told me the embryo/fetus did get its mothers blood. Either way is fine with me. Neither implies that it is alive before it has its own blood. Before it has its own blood it is simply part of the mothers life... the mothers blood is keeping it alive. The life of a creature is in its blood. If a creature doesn't have its own blood yet, it doesn't have its own life yet.

 

[jsn9333]

I think I understand what you are saying here. When I pay for an item by debit, it is not really paid for at the time it is debited, but only when the actual transaction reaches the bank is the payment actually made on the purchase that I bought. Is that correct?

In other words you are straining at gnats.

No, that is not what I'm saying.

What I am saying is that, assuming for the sake of argument that the Hebrew word often translated "pregnant" or "conception" ("harah") means "when sperm implants into egg", then verses people in this thread have relied on to show life starts at hara are verses that say things like, "the woman harah and a child was born," as well as verses like, "God knew me when I was harah."

My point is that, even assuming "harah" means "when sperm implants into egg", those verses still don't say life starts at harah. For the Scriptures refer to sexual intimacy (lying with) as a pre-cursors to life in the same sense those verses do. One verse says two people lie together (had sex) and a child was born to them. Neither the sex act nor the "harah" is said to be the *beginning* of life necessarily. Neither "harah" nor the act of sex before it is ever said to be the beginning of life in those verses. As far as the verses saying "I was known since harah", other verses say "I was known from eternity past (which includes the sexual act)... again, neither is said to be the beginning of life.

(Jason refers to a dictionary that defines conception as either "when sperm implants in egg" or "when zygote implants in uterus"). Save yourself the trouble. We speak English, and that is what you prefer as well. Have you tried a simple dictionary of the English language? I will give you a definition from the World Book Dictionary, 1994 ed. (this particular dictionary only mentions the definition "when sperm implants in egg")

I think that the definition of conception is clear enough and we don't need your confusion added in.

This is funny coming from you, who on page 12 said to me, "Good for the English language!! . . . I can tell you this, Paul didn't speak it; Christ didn't speak it; Abraham didn't speak it. So to speak of the "English word for conception" is totally irrelevant . . ."

Now all the sudden it is relevant again? Let me know when you make up your mind.

The fact is, the English word conception, according to various English dictionaries, can refer to either the sperm implanting in the egg or the egg implanting in the uterus. We have already shown this by citing several authoritative dictionaries. There is no need to re-hash this information. We've also shown that no language had a word for the female ovum before the 17th century, so before then the "sperm implants in egg" definition did not even exist.

Furthermore, there is no evidence the Hebrew word "harah" (translated into 'conception' or 'pregnancy') meant "sperm implants in the egg" any more then it meant "sperm surrounds egg", or "egg implants in uterus"... or "embryo became a fetus", etc. You do not know, nor can you prove, exactly what the Hebrew word for harah means. All you can say is that the closest English words translators have found are "pregnancy" and "conception". Both of those words have various meanings in English... and what's more, the English translation is not what the Hebrews meant, it is just the closest word we have in our language. "Harah" means "became pregnant" or "conceived pregnancy" to the Hebrews, whatever they meant by those phrases...

And even further, "Harah" cannot have meant "when sperm meets egg" the the Hebrew. To say it does mean that is to remain in willful ignorance of the historical fact cited in published historical medical journals and textbooks that no one in mankind knew what an ovum was nor knew it even existed before the 17th century. I know, I know... you "disagree" with all of the published medical history's and journals and think they have no idea what they are talking about. But I'm sorry, your earlier stated logic, "They knew what sperm was, therefore they had to know what an egg was!" just doesn't hold enough weight for me to throw out every history book I've ever seen and believe you instead. All of Eurpope in the middle ages (according to the histories they have passed down to us) knew what sperm was for centuries without knowing what an egg was. I think the Hebrews were capable of knowing what sperm was without knowing what an egg was too. (then there's the additional fact that I've read the Bible and have a Hebrew dictionary and have never seen the word for "ovum" or female egg in any way, shape or form)

 

[Palatka51]

In response to your 2nd post, sure, it is fair to say they didn't know what a cell was (a red blood cell or any cell for that matter). I'm not sure what your point is. They knew what blood was. They didn't know what an ovum was. They had no idea such a thing existed.

And as far as the embryo/fetus not having its mothers blood... sure, I'll take that as true. Another poster told me the embryo/fetus did get its mothers blood. Either way is fine with me. Neither implies that it is alive before it has its own blood. Before it has its own blood it is simply part of the mothers life... the mothers blood is keeping it alive. The life of a creature is in its blood. If a creature doesn't have its own blood yet, it doesn't have its own life yet.

Are you going to deny your own argument now? The Bible says that the life is in the blood not the blood is the life. In the blood is DNA, that DNA is different than both father and mother it has it's own identity. That DNA is formed at conception. It is in that DNA that blood is formed. Without the genetic code of the DNA there would not be any blood. Blood can not form DNA but DNA can form blood. All Life, plant or animal has DNA, all life does not have blood.

The other post before is in error as the blood of the mother will reject the baby at fertilization as well as throughout the child's development. If the mothers blood makes contact with the intruding DNA of the fetus. In fact this is why many women can not conceive as their body will reject the zygote upon implantation. When this happens a human soul is passed into eternity during it's earliest stage of development.

The life is in the blood.

This is your argument, don't back away from that now. You know this to be true. It is time to get over your pride and admit that you are in serious error.

 

[DHK]

No, that is not what I'm saying.

What I am saying is that, assuming for the sake of argument that the Hebrew word often translated "pregnant" or "conception" ("harah") means "when sperm implants into egg", then verses people in this thread have relied on to show life starts at hara are verses that say things like, "the woman harah and a child was born," as well as verses like, "God knew me when I was harah."

My point is that, even assuming "harah" means "when sperm implants into egg", those verses still don't say life starts at harah. For the Scriptures refer to sexual intimacy (lying with) as a pre-cursors to life in the same sense those verses do. One verse says two people lie together (had sex) and a child was born to them. Neither the sex act nor the "harah" is said to be the *beginning* of life necessarily. Neither "harah" nor the act of sex before it is ever said to be the beginning of life in those verses.

1. You are splitting hairs.
2. You are wrong in your conclusions.

This is funny coming from you, who on page 12 said to me, "Good for the English language!! . . . I can tell you this, Paul didn't speak it; Christ didn't speak it; Abraham didn't speak it. So to speak of the "English word for conception" is totally irrelevant . . ."

Now all the sudden it is relevant again? Let me know when you make up your mind.

The fact is, the English word conception, according to various English dictionaries, can refer to either the sperm implanting in the egg or the egg implanting in the uterus. We have already shown this by citing several authoritative dictionaries. There is no need to re-hash this information.

You are right. No need to re-hash.
I have made a number of points (previously) with you. You don't seem to get it.
1. We don't speak the "common" language of medical journals; but we do speak the common English language, thus I gave you the common definition of the word "conception", not some obscure definition that you want to force upon us from some obscure source. You are wrong in your definition just because you can find it in some medical source. What you gave is not the common definition of conception. What I gave you is.

2. I gave you a technical and medical definition (as an example) of something that no doubt you never heard before, and couldn't understand. Remember (Sheehan's syndrome). Can you define it for me? No. Did you understand the definition I gave you? No. Even in the English language we don't understand medical language. So why try to force it upon us. We use common English.

3. In the time of Christ they did not speak classical Greek. They spoke "Koine Greek." That phrase means "common Greek," or the Greek of the common people.

4. To have sex, to "know", to "lay with," all resulted in the same thing. It resulted in a sperm entering an egg, and in the context of the passages given it happened the same night, the same time, that those passages were used, not seven weeks later. You are splitting hairs. Thus conception started at that point, and they knew it. Even a teen-ager today, when she becomes pregnant out of wed-lock can point to the exact day when the sperm entered the egg. Why do you split hairs? The teen-ager may not have been to high school and may not have had biology either, but she knows. Why do you continue to split hairs? We all know when conception started. Ask a single unwed mother, a very young and uneducated one, at that. She knows.

We've also shown that no language had a word for the female ovum before the 17th century, so before then the "sperm implants in egg" definition did not even exist.

False. Your opinion and nothing else. I don't rely on your research. What you have stated is a universal negative, a logical fallacy that cannot be proved.
"No language had a word for the female ovum before the 17th century."

Those are your exact words. It is a logical fallacy--a universal negative--a statement that cannot be proved.
How do you know this? How can it be proved? Have you searched in every language of the world prior to the 17th century that ever existed, and diligently to see if this statement is true. Did you look in the Maori language, the Itala, the Cree, Pharsi, Punjabi, Baluchi, Afghani, etc. Have you searched in every language of the world for the word "female ovum"? Can you demonstrate that your statement is true? The obvious answer is no. Your statement cannot be proved. It is illogical, a logical fallacy known as a universal negative.

Furthermore, there is no evidence the Hebrew word "harah" (translated into 'conception' or 'pregnancy') meant "sperm implants in the egg" any more then it meant "sperm surrounds egg", or "egg implants in uterus"... or "embryo became a fetus", etc. You do not know, nor can you prove, exactly what the Hebrew word for harah means. All you can say is that the closest English words translators have found are "pregnancy" and "conception". Both of those words have various meanings in English... and what's more, the English translation is not what the Hebrews meant, it is just the closest word we have in our language. "Harah" means "became pregnant" or "conceived pregnancy" to the Hebrews, whatever they meant by those phrases...

According to you they have various meanings in English. Not according to common dictionaries. That has been aptly demonstrated. According to Greek scholars (which you have conveniently ignored), the word means fertilization--sperm entering into egg. But you ignored that evidence didn't you?

And even further, "Harah" cannot have meant "when sperm meets egg" the the Hebrew. To say it does mean that is to remain in willful ignorance of the historical fact cited in published historical medical journals

Please quote to me a medical journal that existed in the time of Christ.

and textbooks that no one in mankind knew what an ovum was nor knew it even existed before the 17th century. I know, I know... you "disagree" with all of the published medical history's and journals and think they have no idea what they are talking about. But I'm sorry, your earlier stated logic, "They knew what sperm was, therefore they had to know what an egg was!" just doesn't hold enough weight for me to throw out every history book I've ever seen and believe you instead.

You have already demonstrated in how much you have read on the subject with your woeful ignorance on the history of such prominent historical figures as Columbus. Should I therefore trust your take on the history of medicine. I think not!

All of Eurpope in the middle ages (according to the histories they have passed down to us) knew what sperm was for centuries without knowing what an egg was. I think the Hebrews were capable of knowing what sperm was without knowing what an egg was too. (then there's the additional fact that I've read the Bible and have a Hebrew dictionary and have never seen the word for "ovum" or female egg in any way, shape or form)

"I think" is simply an opinion, and one that I am not considering of much value right now.

 

[Amy.G]

As a mother, I am appalled that anyone needs to question when life begins.
As I look at my precious son (who is no 22 years old), there is no doubt in my mind that he was alive and a human being created by God the very moment that the egg was fertilized.

I don't need science to tell me that.

 

[Palatka51]

Before it has its own blood it is simply part of the mothers life... the mothers blood is keeping it alive. The life of a creature is in its blood. If a creature doesn't have its own blood yet, it doesn't have its own life yet.

It is no more a part of the mother's life than a new born suckling it's mother's breast. The mother's blood and whole body is geared up to nourish the child. Her blood is filtered out by the placenta. The placenta is connected to the umbilical cord which is connected to the baby through the navel. The nourishment is taken directly into the baby's digestive system and there it is distributed throughout the baby's body. If the mother's blood has any contact with the child beyond the placenta both mother and child's immune system will gear up antibodies to combat each other and both lives would be in jeopardy.

Hey jsn9333, You have convinced me. Life is in the blood, now meet me half way and say that the blood is in the DNA. Again DNA (life's individuality) is in the blood and blood is formed by the life that is DNA. Open your mind and heart to the truth. You can do it. Say it with me, The life is in the blood, blood is not the life.

 

[Palatka51]

As a mother, I am appalled that anyone needs to question when life begins.
As I look at my precious son (who is no 22 years old), there is no doubt in my mind that he was alive and a human being created by God the very moment that the egg was fertilized.

I don't need science to tell me that.

Amen Amy, amen. :godisgood:

 

[jsn9333]

Are you going to deny your own argument now? The Bible says that the life is in the blood not the blood is the life. In the blood is DNA, that DNA is different than both father and mother it has it's own identity. That DNA is formed at conception. It is in that DNA that blood is formed. Without the genetic code of the DNA there would not be any blood. Blood can not form DNA but DNA can form blood. All Life, plant or animal has DNA, all life does not have blood.

The other post before is in error as the blood of the mother will reject the baby at fertilization as well as throughout the child's development. If the mothers blood makes contact with the intruding DNA of the fetus. In fact this is why many women can not conceive as their body will reject the zygote upon implantation. When this happens a human soul is passed into eternity during it's earliest stage of development.

The life is in the blood.

This is your argument, don't back away from that now. You know this to be true. It is time to get over your pride and admit that you are in serious error.

I didn't say the blood was in the life. I said what the Bible says, the life is in the blood. Sure, DNA is part of the process by which blood forms. But a sperm is part of the process by which the DNA forms. And sex is part of the process by which a sperm forms. You're logic can lead you wherever you want it to lead you, which is why we have to believe the Bible instead of our own logic. The Bible says the life of a being is in its blood. In the blood is DNA, sure, but there are many other things in the blood too. The Bible says blood, not one component of blood.

Again, your opinion about the other poster's statement concerning mother's blood flowing through the fetus is fine and I think you are right. But for the sake of the argument I'll assume whatever facts a poster wants me to work with if those facts aren't central to the argument. And here the argument is that the fetus does not develop its own blood for some weeks after fertilization. Whether or not it's mothers blood flows through it before that is irrelevant, which is why I did not bother "refuting" the poster on that point.

Hey jsn9333, You have convinced me. Life is in the blood, now meet me half way and say that the blood is in the DNA. Again DNA (life's individuality) is in the blood and blood is formed by the life that is DNA. Open your mind and heart to the truth. You can do it. Say it with me, The life is in the blood, blood is not the life.

The Bible does not say the life is in the DNA. There are many things that go into the formation of blood. DNA is a very important part of forming blood, but the Bible doesn't say "the life is in the thing that plays the big part in forming the blood." It says the life is in the blood. If the life of a creature is in it's blood, and there is no blood, then there is no life.

 

[jsn9333]

DHK,
If someone says life starts at conception because a verse says "He knew me when I was conceived," then it is not splitting hairs to point out that other verses say "He knew me before I was conceived." That is only "splitting hairs" if you define "splitting hairs" as "any verse in the Bible that contradicts DHK's preconceived Traditional beliefs."

If you're authority is only the "most common" definition of English words, then what if the common definition of "conception" changes? The common definition of "conception" in the English language used to be implantation of the zygote. Before the zygote was discovered, the definition it was something else. The Bible truths do not change just because our "common" definitions change in the language we translate it into. The Truth relayed about "conception" in the Bible is what the Hebrew word "harah" meant when it was written down (or the Greek word, etc.).

To have sex, to "know", to "lay with," all resulted in the same thing. It resulted in a sperm entering an egg, and in the context of the passages given it happened the same night, the same time, that those passages were used, not seven weeks later. You are splitting hairs. Thus conception started at that point, and they knew it. Even a teen-ager today, when she becomes pregnant out of wed-lock can point to the exact day when the sperm entered the egg. Why do you split hairs? The teen-ager may not have been to high school and may not have had biology either, but she knows. Why do you continue to split hairs? We all know when conception started. Ask a single unwed mother, a very young and uneducated one, at that. She knows.

To have sex with results in many more things then a sperm entering an egg. It results in a sperm entering the woman, sperm surrounding an egg, sperm implanting in an egg, a blastocyst implanting in the uterus, a zygote forming into an embryo, and a fetus forming blood. You are arbitrarily picking one of those stages as the beginning of life... which is fine as a personal opinion. But the Bible does not lend your choice any more evidence then another arbitrarily chosen point.

A human with no background in biology at all would not know that an egg even exists, much less the point at which a sperm joins it. All known authorities on the history of human knowledge that I know of say that mankind discovered the existence of the female ovum in the 17th century. The Hebrews did not know when a sperm joined an egg or even that the egg existed, therefore their word "harah" does not refer to when a sperm implanted into an egg.

The existence of ovum in any mammal was discovered by Karl Ernst von Baer in 1827. Look up the history of the ovum in any encyclopedia. Or see "An Introduction to the History of Medicine, with Medical Chronology" By Fielding Hudson Garrison p. 474. The first human ovum was discovered in 1828. See "Clinical In Vitro Fertilization." Wood C, Trounson A., Springer-Verlag, Berlin 1984, Page 6. You can keep insisting mankind knew about the ovum before then with your cute logic like "even teenagers know about the egg," but that does nothing except make it look like your position is based in ignorance.

It is not a "universal negative" and therefore a logical fallacy to say mankind did not know of the egg before it was discovered any more then it is a fallacy to say mankind did not know about nuclear power until it was discovered. It is safe to assume no human language had a word for "nuclear power" defined as "the power released when a radioactive atom is destroyed" until nuclear power was discovered.

According to Greek scholars (which you have conveniently ignored), the word means fertilization--sperm entering into egg. But you ignored that evidence didn't you

What evidence? You haven't produced a shred of evidence about what the greeks meant by "conceived." Are you now saying the Greek's defined "syllambanō" or "συλλαμβάνω" ("to conceive" or "to become pregnant" as used in Luke) as when the sperm implanted in the egg? Why do you assume they held to the present common English definition of conceived and not the common English definition of it from years ago?

And again, whether the Greeks or Hebrews defined "conception" by an egg is irrelevant, because the verses you rely on to say "conception" is the beginning of life are baseless anyway, as I showed earlier and repeated in the first sentence of this post. Even if you could prove they knew what an egg was and defined "harah" or "syllambanō" according to the egg, it doesn't help your position.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Hey jsn9333, You have convinced me. Life is in the blood, now meet me half way and say that the blood is in the DNA. Again DNA (life's individuality) is in the blood and blood is formed by the life that is DNA. Open your mind and heart to the truth. You can do it. Say it with me, The life is in the blood, blood is not the life.

Just a little fyi.

There is actually very little DNA in blood compared to other parts of the body. Mature red blood cells which make up most of the cells in blood do not contain DNA. Plasma which makes up most of the volume of blood does not contain DNA. The only DNA in blood is from the immune white blood cells and they make up a very small portion of blood. However, blood is convenient to take out of the body and gets replenished so it is used for DNA tests.

In contrast, practically every cell in the rest of the body contains DNA. So if you say that blood is life because it contains DNA, I would disagree.

Blood is life because it carries oxygen and nutrients to all the cells in the body while taking away CO2 and waste products. Without that, all our cells would die.

 

[jsn9333]

As I look at my precious son (who is no 22 years old), there is no doubt in my mind that he was alive and a human being created by God the very moment that the egg was fertilized.

Hi Amy,

Your love for your son and of being a mother is honorable. We need more loving parents like you in this world.

And your opinion about when life starts is a fine personal belief to have. However, fine does not mean biblical. You are entitled to your own opinion, but you can't force it on others unless the Bible specifically teaches it

There is as much (or rather as little) evidence that the Bible teaches your son's life started when the sperm implanted in the egg as there is that his life started when the sperm surrounded the egg, or when the blastocyst implanted in the uterus, or when the zygote formed into an embryo. You are arbitrarily picking one of those stages as the beginning of life... which, again, is fine as a personal opinion. But the Bible does not lend your choice any more evidence then another arbitrarily chosen point.

As a mother, I am appalled that anyone needs to question when life begins.

I could say I'm appalled that you don't think life begins when the sperms come into contact with the egg, because 99.9% of the time the sperm then fertilize it. But that would not be on topic with this thread. The purpose of this thread is to explore what Bible says about when life begins. I could say I'm appalled that so many Christians use contraception at times when, without it, a life almost certainly would have occured (and many Christians would agree). But again, that is not the topic.

And actually, yes, at some point even you questioned when life began too. You just came to a different conclusion then some other Christians do. The only way you can hold them to your definition is if your's has more support in the Bible. And it doesn't.

 

[Amy.G]

Hi Amy,
There is as much (or rather as little) evidence that the Bible teaches your son's life started when the sperm implanted in the egg as there is that his life started when the sperm surrounded the egg, or when the blastocyst implanted in the uterus, or when the zygote formed into an embryo. You are arbitrarily picking one of those stages as the beginning of life... which, again, is fine as a personal opinion. But the Bible does not lend your choice any more evidence then another arbitrarily chosen point.

Here is a question. Why does it matter if we know when life begins? The only person it matters to is the one who is trying to remove their guilt of having killed another.

Why does a woman grieve after having a miscarriage? Does she grieve over a zygote or a blastocyst? No. She grieves over the person that she will never hold and love.

When a woman decides to have an abortion, she is not trying to rid herself of a zygote or a blastocyst. She is ridding herself of a person that she knows will inconvenience her life.
So, the sin has already been committed in her heart.

Therefore, it doesn't matter when science says life begins. It matters what is in a person's heart.

Jesus said it best:

Mat 15:19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies.

 

[Palatka51]

Just a little fyi.

There is actually very little DNA in blood compared to other parts of the body. Mature red blood cells which make up most of the cells in blood do not contain DNA. Plasma which makes up most of the volume of blood does not contain DNA. The only DNA in blood is from the immune white blood cells and they make up a very small portion of blood. However, blood is convenient to take out of the body and gets replenished so it is used for DNA tests.

In contrast, practically every cell in the rest of the body contains DNA. So if you say that blood is life because it contains DNA, I would disagree.

Blood is life because it carries oxygen and nutrients to all the cells in the body while taking away CO2 and waste products. Without that, all our cells would die.

Your FYI spouts the arrogance of one that is an enabler also. Might I refer you to post #138, Sir?

What proof do you bring to the table that there is no DNA in the red corpuscle?

Does not the DNA of an individual come together at conception? Yes!

Does not DNA contain the instructions for the formation of the circulatory system? Yes!

Does not DNA contain the information for growth and development from conception to birth, from birth to puberty, from puberty to adult, from adult to senior and from senior to death? Yes!

All stages of growth and human development are determined by the information of the DNA. The individuality of development starts at conception.

Sense you are of Asian descent, does it not bother you that the most murdered of all the unborn are of Chinese families that choses to have more than one child, and are forced to get an abortion? The ultimate stage of all that engage in this murderer's craft.:tear:

 

[jsn9333]

If we are going to pick an arbitrary point for the beginning of life and tell people that unless they agree with us the Bible condemns them as murderers... then I think the Bible should actually say what we claim it is saying.

And the Bible does not say life starts when the sperm fertilizes the egg. I wish it did, because then there wouldn't be this debate. But it doesn't say that. And I have to believe the Bible, even if I would rather believe a Tradition in my church. Creating traditions and then judging others by them is not what we are called to do. We are called to judge by the Scriptures alone.

Sure women grieve over miscarriage. They grieve over infertility too. But what does that have to do with when the Bible teaches life starts? Roman Catholics grieve over the person that will never exist due to contraception. That doesn't mean life starts when the sperm get within distance of the egg.

You are entitled to whatever personal belief you want to have as to when life starts. You are not entitled to judge other people's belief unless the Bible judges it.

Here is a question. Why does it matter if we know when life begins? The only person it matters to is the one who is trying to remove their guilt of having killed another.

Why does a woman grieve after having a miscarriage? Does she grieve over a zygote or a blastocyst? No. She grieves over the person that she will never hold and love.

When a woman decides to have an abortion, she is not trying to rid herself of a zygote or a blastocyst. She is ridding herself of a person that she knows will inconvenience her life.
So, the sin has already been committed in her heart.

Therefore, it doesn't matter when science says life begins. It matters what is in a person's heart.

Jesus said it best:

Mat 15:19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies.

 

[Amy.G]

What is the ulimate purpose in knowing the exact moment life begins?

 

[jsn9333]

What is the ulimate purpose in knowing the exact moment life begins?

The purpose is so that we only call people murderers whom the Bible calls murderers. We can't just decide for ourselves when we are going to throw those kinds of charges and judgments around.

The topic of when life begins is something that many people wonder about. When they come to us, as Christians, for an answer we should point them to the Bible... not our own tradition. Otherwise we're no better then the Roman Catholic Church. Christianity is not a salad bar where you pick and choose what to believe. You must go by the Scriptures.

 

[Amy.G]

The purpose is so that we only call people murderers whom the Bible calls murderers. We can't just decide for ourselves when we are going to throw those kinds of charges and judgments around.

The topic of when life begins is something that many people wonder about. When they come to us, as Christians, for an answer we should point them to the Bible... not our own tradition. Otherwise we're no better then the Roman Catholic Church. Christianity is not a salad bar where you pick and choose what to believe. You must go by the Scriptures.

The scriptures say that murder originates in the heart. So when a woman decides to have an abortion, she has committed murder in her heart because it's not an inanimate object or cell that she wants to get rid of, but a child.
The actual development of the fetus doesn't change what's in a person's heart. That is what God holds us responsible for.

 

[jsn9333]

That makes no sense at all. I could just as easily say, "The scriptures say that murder originates in the heart. So when a woman decides to use contraception, she has committed murder in her heart." That is the same logic you use. The passage you refer to does nothing to support your conclusion.

A lot of things originate in the heart, not just murder. The verse that says evil thoughts, stealing, murder, etc originate in the heart does not say anything about what murder actually is. It says where murder originates.

Murder ends a life. You have to look further to find out what is a life and what isn't. Roman Catholics see life as having its beginnings even before fertilization, which is why they stand against contraception. Other Christians see life as starting after fertilization. Who are you to judge? You are not the Judge. The Scriptures must judge.

Unless the Bible specifically says abortion before the fetus has its own blood is murder, then you can't judge other's by your own personal standard. The Bible specifically and clearly says the life of a creature is in its blood. That is why I can believe what I do about when life starts.

Do I wish it said life starts at fertilization? Sure. That would be fine by me. I would never abort an embryo anyway. I'm not even comfortable with "the pill". But my own personal beliefs are not what I"m called to judge the world by. If we judge others by our own traditional beliefs instead of by Scripture we're no better then the Catholic Church.

The scriptures say that murder originates in the heart. So when a woman decides to have an abortion, she has committed murder in her heart because it's not an inanimate object or cell that she wants to get rid of, but a child.
The actual development of the fetus doesn't change what's in a person's heart. That is what God holds us responsible for.

 

[Amy.G]

It is you who doesn't understand.

If a woman decides to have an abortion, it is the child she does not want. That is the sin. That is what God sees. The stage of develpment has nothing to do with what is in her heart. God judges the heart.

If a man lusts after a woman, he has committed adultery in his heart, even though he never touched the woman. It is what is in his heart that God judges and proclaims is sin.

You do not have to actually have to do the deed in order to commit sin.

To tell a woman who wants to have an abortion, "it's ok because it's not really a person" is to lie to her because she has already committed abortion in her heart. The desire of her heart is to rid her life of a child. That is why it is sin.