When Does Life Begin?

[LeBuick]

So the body within the mother is on life support and not a life in and of itself? But if there is no life within the mother there would be no need for "life support." God geared the woman's body to support life, not for her body to become a killing field. Even during the first few months the mother continues to provide life support in nursing the child. Life is there at conception LeBuick.

When the "Ghost is given up" that body is completely dead and no longer gets any life support. It would be ludicrous to hook it up to a heart monitor, provide forced Oxygen into its lungs, compress the chest for CPR, provide a feeding tube and then hook up pumps to circulate blood through dialysis for cleansing. The body would simply rot through all that effort.

Ludicrous, you described life support to the letter. I don't consider a person on life support as being alive. If pulling the plug means this person will cease to exist then I believe the ghost has already left the body and is with the Lord.

In the mother, life is present. All the support is taken by the body within her. It grows to maturity for birth. It does not rot.

I have already told the story of my brother that was still born. His body had to be removed from my mother because he died within her. If he was not life (as you have suggested that it isn't until it has breath) then how is it that he died in the first place? If he was allowed to stay there, he would have began to decay and also cause the death of my mother. Mother's body had already begun to shut down from life support because the baby was dead. This is what made her go to the Dr as she began to bleed. The Dr then took the body from her and pronounced the baby dead.

Life begins at conception, get your heart right with the Giver of Life and you will see too that the Scripture bears this out as truth.

Sorry to hear about your brother. I know those are tough times to deal with. In the womb one can't support ones self or exist as a living soul.

Like your above example of life support, that which is in the womb is connected to something that is providing what you call life. It is not existing of itself, it is dependant on something to exist.

 

[TCGreek]

Life begins when God says it does.

 

[Allan]

Life begins when God says it does.

And when is that TCGreek? :laugh:

 

[Allan]

Like your above example of life support, that which is in the womb is connected to something that is providing what you call life. It is not existing of itself, it is dependant on something to exist.

And infant can not sustain itself but is still dependant upon others to exist, niether can many old age people.

An unborn is dependant upon it's mother in the womb no different than it is outside of the womb. In the womb it breaths on its own, it is not force feed air. In the womb the child's heart beats on it's own and does not need any assistance from the mother. In the womb the freely moves, feels pain (and avoids it) without any assistance from the mother. It grows without being forcably made to do so, and responds to stimuli without assistance.

The anaolgy of it being on life-support (as in unable to respond or move with no disernable mind or mental functionality) is completely incorrect.

 

[Crabtownboy]

And infant can not sustain itself but is still dependant upon others to exist, niether can many old age people.

An unborn is dependant upon it's mother in the womb no different than it is outside of the womb. In the womb it breaths on its own, it is not force feed air.

Allan, I believe this is not correct. The unborn within the womb is surrounded by water and thus breathing as we breath once born is impossible. There is oxygen exchange from the mother to the child. This is absolutely necessary, just as nutrition is exchanged from the mother to the child.

In the womb the child's heart beats on it's own and does not need any assistance from the mother.

True, the unborn's heart does beat. I forget just when it begins beating in the gestational period and I do not have time to check at the moment.

The anaolgy of it being on life-support (as in unable to respond or move with no disernable mind or mental functionality) is completely incorrect.

It is like being on life support until it is developed enough that it can survive on its own outside the mother. Premature infants are kept on hospital life support until such time that they can survive on their own.

Gotta run.

 

[TCGreek]

And when is that TCGreek? :laugh:

So you didn't let me get away with that one? :laugh:

I might be old fashion is this, but I believe that at the moment of conception God begins the weaving process (Ps 139:13, 15).

 

[Allan]

Allan, I believe this is not correct. The unborn within the womb is surrounded by water and thus breathing as we breath once born is impossible. There is oxygen exchange from the mother to the child. This is absolutely necessary, just as nutrition is exchanged from the mother to the child.

No, the unborn child does breathe as show here in the article Life before Birth by Dr. David B. Chamberlain, Ph.D: ** (though of course it does not breathe air nor is it necessarily breathing for the sake of oxygen)**

The nose develops between 11 and 15 weeks. Many chemical compounds can cross the placenta to join the amniotic fluid, providing the fetus with tastes and odors. The amniotic fluid surrounding the fetus bathes the oral, nasal, and pharyngeal cavities, and babies breathe it and swallow it, permitting direct access to receptors of several chemosensory systems: taste buds in three locations, olfactory epithelia, vomeronasal system, and trigeminal system (Smotherman and Robinson, 1995).

Associations formed in utero can alter subsequent fetal behavior and are retained into postnatal life. The evidence for direct and indirect learning of odors in utero has been reviewed by Schaal, Orgeur, and Rogan (1995). They point to an extraordinary range of available odiferous compounds, an average of 120 in individual samples of amniotic fluid! In addition, products of the mother's diet reach the baby via the placenta and the blood flowing in the capillaries of the nasal mucosa. Thus, prenatal experience with odorants from both sources probably prepare this sensory system to search for certain odors or classes of odors. In one experiment, babies registered changes in fetal breathing and heart rate when mothers drank coffee, whether it was caffeinated or decaffeinated. Newborns are drawn to the odor of breastmilk, although they have no previous experience with it. Researchers think this may come from cues they have learned in prenatal life.

Here is an article which shows fetal breathing actaully has intra-tracheal fluid flow both into and out of the lungs during the 2nd half of pregnancy - here:

True, the unborn's heart does beat. I forget just when it begins beating in the gestational period and I do not have time to check at the moment.

It starts beating 22 days after conception.

It is like being on life support until it is developed enough that it can survive on its own outside the mother. Premature infants are kept on hospital life support until such time that they can survive on their own

Again, the same can be said and in fact is said for those who are subject to euthanasia. If it can't take care of itself then there is no moral problem killing it. Because we are no longer defining what constitutes life but a version of what is considered quality of life. And thus it is quality that determines life and not the fact of life.

However, as I said the baby is self sufficient in growing, moving, and responding. But just as a baby, child, or aged person they do need assistance of another to care for them till they are thoroughly self-sufficient for all their needs. So again the analogy of life-support is incorrect on many levels.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Again, the same can be said and in fact is said for those who are subject to euthanasia. If it can't take care of itself then there is no moral problem killing it. Because we are no longer defining what constitutes life but a version of what is considered quality of life. And thus it is quality that determines life and not the fact of life.

I am not an advocate for euthansia. Having said that I do not see the logical connection with the Biblical definition of life beginning with the first breath.

But it does bring up an interesting question. Many of us, including me, would no longer be alive if it were not for modern medicine. Do we, using modern medicine, interfere with God's natural order in the length of our life by using modern medicine. But that is a topci for another thread.

However, as I said the baby is self sufficient in growing, moving, and responding. But just as a baby, child, or aged person they do need assistance of another to care for them till they are thoroughly self-sufficient for all their needs. So again the analogy of life-support is incorrect on many levels.

Yes, the unborn is sufficien for growth, moving and responding and yes they do need assistance from the mother. The aged person may need assistance, but it is not a natural assistance that is given, it is a man created one ... and for me, I think God they have been created. I so not see the two as the same. One is natural, or of nature, the other is not.


I found the information on febal breating very interesting. I had not heard of it before. Having thought about it I find, for myself, that this is not surprising. The unborn moves, sucks the thumb or finger and to make breathing movements makes a lot of logical sense. However it is breathing movement and not breathing in the sense of obtaining oxygen. I found the following and thought it quite interesting.

Fetal breathing movements. An update for the pediatrician
M. Kaplan

Although the presence of fetal breathing movements (FBMs) has been suspected for almost a century, the major advances in the field were made during the last decade. Experimental animal techniques of detection include instrumentation of fetuses with electronic recording equipment. Human studies use more indirect, although no less accurate, A-mode or real-time B-scan ultrasonography in the recording of FBMs. The fetus does not make breathing movements continuously; however, there are periods of FBMs interspersed with periods of apnea. Inherent to FBMs is a diurnal variation. Hypoxia and hypoglycemia diminish FBMs, while hypercarbia and hyperglycemia have the opposite effect. Caffeine, barbiturates, and general anesthetics modify FBMs by their influence on the CNS. Preliminary studies have shown the presence of FBMs to indicate a state of fetal well-being. Possibly, in the future, testing for FBMs may become a useful clinical tool in the identification of the fetus at risk.

http://archpedi.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/137/2/177

Thanks four your response. I appreciate it very much.

 

[Allan]

But it does bring up an interesting question. Many of us, including me, would no longer be alive if it were not for modern medicine. Do we, using modern medicine, interfere with God's natural order in the length of our life by using modern medicine. But that is a topci for another thread.

It probably would

Yes, the unborn is sufficien for growth, moving and responding and yes they do need assistance from the mother. The aged person may need assistance, but it is not a natural assistance that is given, it is a man created one ... and for me, I think God they have been created. I so not see the two as the same. One is natural, or of nature, the other is not.

Point taken but that does not extend to the infant and child that I also gave as examples.

I found the information on febal breating very interesting. I had not heard of it before. Having thought about it I find, for myself, that this is not surprising. The unborn moves, sucks the thumb or finger and to make breathing movements makes a lot of logical sense. However it is breathing movement and not breathing in the sense of obtaining oxygen. I found the following and thought it quite interesting.

Actually that was made in 1983 and they have since then done just that. They have proved the fetus does in fact have continuous breathing movement and by it along with other aspect they can the presence or absence of fetal asphyxia, Hypoxemia, acidemia and ultimately the risk of fetal death in the antenatal periodfetus. Thus dispelling the old theory of breathing movements not being continuous. And can be seen here in an article from 2005 (if you scroll down to the bottom you can watch clips of fetal movements, breathing and other aspects. And as I stated previously they have shown - fetal breathing actaully has intra-tracheal fluid flow both into and out of the lungs during the 2nd half of pregnancy from the article hyperlinked to from 2002.

Thanks four your response. I appreciate it very much.

No problem

 

[Allan]

So you didn't let me get away with that one? :laugh:

I might be old fashion is this, but I believe that at the moment of conception God begins the weaving process (Ps 139:13, 15).

I stand with you there brother :thumbs:

 

[menageriekeeper]

I was one of those who voted other.

After reading what little there is in scripture about just when the moment of life begins, I have a rather different idea than what has been presented. What has been presented is well and good in and of itself, but these are all arguements that could be used against birth control as well as abortion. But it seems that no one here is actually suggesting such. If life truely begins when sperm meets egg then most birth controls would meet the definition of "aborticants" because one of the ways birth control works is by preventing those two cells, now joined and called a zygote, from implanting in the mother's womb.

My view doesn't suffer from that contradiction. The Scripture speaks of life being "held" in two places. "The life is in the blood" (Gen 9:4) and "breath of life" (Gen 2:7, 6:17, etc). The very first time a "zygote" can be said to have either of these is upon implantation in the mother's womb. (basic science meets scripture) In the meantime (ie the time between fertlization and implantation) what you have is potential life. The zygote might implant and then again it might not. After implantation the zygote begins to share both the blood and the breath of the mother and therefore meets the definition of life in both a scientific way and a scriptural way.

You know, I believe the Bible presents us with many, many pictures of rebirth, but I believe birth is one of the very best. I believe conception shows the drawing of God on man's heart. The potential for a Christian is there, but he's not one yet. But then all of a sudden there is the sudden spark of realization that one is in dire need help. This is the passage of the zygote from the fallopian tube to womb. But still, there is only potential. This is where choice comes in. If man wills it, God will plant him within God's own family, much as the zygote plants itself in the mother's womb. Once there a spectacular life as a Christian can begin and unlike the imminent dangers to the now developing baby, nothing can "abort" us from God's kingdom. (random thought's brought on by this thread)

You asked for Biblical confirmation on the beginning of life in the womb, and on a short notice I can give you one, which proves two things: 1) That God forms life in the womb, and 2) God knows the developing fetus as a person. Here is the Bible verse:

Jeremiah 1:5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.

While I agree with you Barnabas, I also must say that I do not believe that if Jeremiah's mother had had an abortion that Jeremiah wouldn't have been born My belief, is that God in His infinate knowledge, planned for and provided for Jeremiah to be born and was going to see to it regardless of the mechinisms of man.

Jeremiah was, by God's own word, a special case, created for a specific purpose. We would all like to apply that to ourselves, but I'm not absolutely sure that we can. I personally don't believe I'm ordained by God to any more of a specific purpose than anyone else. We, collectively, are ordained to spread God's word. But Jeremiah's purpose was more specific, much more specific and God spelled it out for him clearly.

 

[BaptistLady02]

Life begins at conception.