Life is in the blood...

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

Often, for support of the conception position, I've heard people rely on the verse where God says, "I knew you in the womb." But the Bible also says God knew us from eternity past, so when God "knows" us can't be said to determine when life begins. If it did, then our life begins an eternity ago, long before conception, and even choosing to not be intimate on a night when a couple normally would be could be construed as "murder" (which would make no sense at all... but that would be the logical outcome). In fact, that logic seems more in line with the Roman Catholic position that any contraception is evil, because life has already been "set in motion." Perhaps starting to be intimate then stopping would be evil too... I mean, there are so many questions if you rely on when God "knew" a person.

Are there other verses supporting the conception position that I just have not heard anyone mention? I'm asking that honestly, because I've not discussed this topic much with people (it tends to be sensitive and arouse strong feelings).

The embryo gets its own blood type and starts making its own blood at 7 weeks. The life of all living creatures created by God is said to exist in that creature's blood (see Scriptures above), therefore can it be said the life of any creature begins at around 7 weeks, when the person's blood exist? Is that a more biblical definition for when life begins?

Any definition is going to be at least a little bit of a stretch, because the Bible doesn't clearly approach the topic directly. But this seems like less of a stretch then the "known in the womb and from eternity past = life starts at conception" position.

Perhaps "conception" was the "safest bet" to say when life began just to be sure no babies were being killed... that is, before medical science was able to show when an embryo gets its own blood type and starts making its own blood. Is "at conception" really a tenable position, Biblically speaking, now that we know more about the timing of blood creation in human reproduction?

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?

 

That's a great answer from a secular, logical perspective. What I'm looking for is why, biblically speaking, life is said to not exist before conception but to exist afterwards.

Logic can lead a reasonable person to a wide variety of conclusions. If we just go by logic, you could say that the sperm and the egg are both programmed to become a human even before they unite... you could say the unification is just one step of many steps that began with intimacy (or even before it). Sure, the cells have to unite for the process to continue and complete. But even after they unite (when your logic says a life begins), they (now joined) still have to implant into the womb. Just like without "unification" a human cannot be born, so without "implantation" no one will be born. And then after implantation, still many more things are necessary for a baby to eventually be born.

Now your logic may be or may not be better then what I've just said, logically speaking. But again, I'm not asking for logical support for the conception position... rather, I'm asking for biblical support.

As for the "unique" DNA after conception... actually, the sperm and the egg each have unique DNA before conception too (unique from every other sperm and egg). So again, unification can just be seen as part of the process. Also, DNA sometimes mutates during zygote or embryo development. In that case, because the DNA sequence changed does that mean one person died and another was created? After all, one unique DNA 'being' ceased to exist and was replaced by new 'unique' DNA. Again though, that is just a rhetorical question... just intended to show that logic can lead all sorts of places. I don't want to argue logic. The real question I"m asking is not for logical support for the conception position... rather, I'm asking for biblical support. We could go back and forth on logic all day long. I'm looking for as clear a biblical answer as possible.

One last time just to be as clear as possible: The key word for this thread is "biblical". ;-)

 

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.

The Exodus verse seems a little stronger as far as being applicable to when life exists. However, even there the discussion is about a woman with child such that were she injured she might give birth early. Then the verse turns to the consequences if the child were to live or to die afterwards. She would have to be significantly along in the pregnancy to be considered "with child" period, and especially "with child" in the sense that she could give birth pre-maturely and the child could have a chance to live. This verse could lend support to the position that perhaps a third-trimester or even 2nd trimester fetus is a living person (because of the "life for life" reference in the verse that follows the passage). However, if she was at 7 weeks or so, I don't think she would be referred to as "with child", especially in those days, and certainly would not be capable of giving birth pre-maturely with the possiblity of the child living. So this doesn't seem to support the conclusion that the Bible teaches that life starts at conception (as opposed to implantation, week 1, week2, ... week 7... etc.).

Given the fervor with which so many conservative Christians hold to the conception position, I would think there would be stronger biblical support. Any other verses?

 

This is the verse I was referring to in the original post.

 

I'm not sure these verses "plainly" mean life begins with everyone at first breath, but they do seem more applicable then the "conception position" verses. Certainly Adam is said to have had life breathed into him by God. However, Adam was created quite differently then a baby. I'm not sure we can apply that verse to fetal development.

The fact that the breath of God gives life doesn't mean that our own breath is what determines if we have life. God can breath life into a fetus through the blood. What I'm saying is that the reference is to God's breath (whatever that is), not the person's breath.

As far as God breathing life into bones, that does seem to refer to the breath of the person. But again, causing bones to live is different from fetal development. I'm not sure the verse is completely "plain" to see as it applies to when life begins. I'll admit, however, that this "breath life into bones" verse seems more plainly applicable then the "knew you from eternity past" and "knew you in the womb" verses people have cited.

A fetus, though, unlike bones, can get its own blood (which along with breath is also said to impart life) long before it breaths air. Also, the "breath life into bones" verse doesn't mention that the substance breathed *has* to be air. Fetuses breath in the womb... it just isn't air. Starting in the third trimester, the fetus does make the motions of breathing, and in this way moves amniotic fluid in and out of her lungs. That being said, they don't get oxygen from that activity... it just helps develop the lungs. But again, in all other respects this is "breathing."

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.

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.

 

Again, 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.

 

Can you glorify God with contraception? Can you glorify God with the abstinence method of birth control?

Can you glorify God by eating soybeans? I'm not trying to be crass, but rather making the point that if something is not said to be sinful for everyone you can't make it sinful simply by saying it doesn't glorify God. There are ways to glorify God through contraception, or not using contraception. There are ways to glorify God through the timing method or not using the timing method (of birth control). There are ways to glorify God through eating soybeans or abstaining. God has not "outlawed" any of these activities... so if they are done with the right mindset, they will glorify God.

Therefore, if abortion before week 7 is not a sin because the fetus is not a person, and it is just like contraception from a Biblical perspective, then yes, it can glorify God.

 

Assuming, again, that abortion before 7 weeks is not a sin and does not end a life (a huge assumption for many on the board, but work with me here), then I would think it would serve the same glorifying purposes that contraception or "the timing method" would serve... just in a different way.