Does Life Begin at Conception?

"For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy."

 

I do believe life begins at conception.

However, I disagree with what some folks do with that.

I'm thinking of personhood amendments banning such things as birth control pills. They generally work by preventing ovulation, thus preventing conception, not as abortifacients. I know there is some wrong headed science touted by quiverful and some anti contraceptive groups, but I believe they are wrong. IUD'S generally do allow conception but prevent pregnancy, so I do oppose those as abortifacient.

There really are safe, non abortifacient means of birth control out there. Of course, I also believe only married couples should have any need of them, as unmarried should abstain.

If I were great high poo bah of the issue I would accord all human rights to begin at conception, but not outlaw non abortifacient birth control AS DEFINED BY SCIENCE, not the Pattersons or Duggers.

 

Please define "person."

 

Already have:

One who bears a living soul. Such as: And God breathed into Adam and he became a "living soul".

 

Pretty much kills any dialog about the subject here.

 

Actually, no, it wasn't already answered in this thread. You made an allusion to a "person with a soul"; but that wasn't a clear reference to the definition of person.

Where did your definition come from?

I ask because, we can't use a term and understand each other's meanings with regard to that term, unless we disagree on the definition. So far, I haven't found a dictionary that agrees with your definition.

The straight, scientific answer to the thread question--does life begin at conception?--is yes. The egg by itself, the sperm by itself, both are missing one thing that qualifies for the scientific definition of "life": neither can reproduce by themselves. Once they combine, cells start reproducing; the same with plants, and the other analogies used in this thread. Even a single-celled amoeba carries out cellular division and reproduction.

At the point of conception, cellular reproduction begins; metabolism begins; homeostasis begins; etc., etc. At this point, all the necessary characteristics of "life" are present.

According to God, we are fearfully and wonderfully made. In fact, just reading an article today: Your chances of *personally* coming into existence defies statistics. Probability of each of us coming into existence: 1 in 10^2,685,000. That's the probability of 2 million people getting together – about the population of San Diego – each to play a game of dice with trillion-sided dice. They each roll the dice, and they all come up the exact same number.

And yet, Jeremiah says He knew us before He formed us in the womb; and in Psalms, David says that He covered him in the womb.

How can any Christian say that abortion is *not* the termination of a miracle?

 

My wife had a miscarriage in the 1980's. The doctor told us that the fetus was not developed, there was no brain or any other thing except unformed tissue. Maybe he was correct, but I know it was devastating news. Whether or not this was a person is not really the issue for me.

Although we are not biologists and could not tell you every stage of development, we were waiting for the birth of a child, not the culmination of biological processes that would finally be able to function in our world.

The worst thing today about abortion, to me, is the flippant attitude our society has toward life in general. Most abortions are the result of an unwanted child who is sacrificed on the alter of self-indulgence, not the result of rape or incest. This caviler attitude is not only evident in how we treat the unborn, or even the elderly. It is the culmination of a society that does not value life at all, and has even less value toward the God that gave us this life.

 

You receive your soul with your first breath;
when you are a viable human being detached
from the womb. Prior to that you have
"biological" life like an animal would have.

 

The only place that matters: Genesis.

I know I've already discussed this. Jeremiah says God knew *Jeremiah* before He formed him in the womb. David says God covered *David* in the womb. Both of these men were created with a direct purpose of God in mind. Sorry, but the rest of us can't claim that. We'd like too, after all we're taught that we are all special right? Well, the Bible never tells us that. That is something we project onto scriptures cause it seems nice. What scripture actually tells us is that we are born destined for hell, with no worth whatsoever until we accept Christ as Savior.

And neither of these is the point. The point is that no matter what we expect, what we call those biological processes, we can't define the SPIRITUAL process that causes the biological to become a living soul. It's God's territory. We have to use the brain He gave us. Yours says life begins the moment sperm meets egg. Mine says there must be more too it because nature itself rejects many of those pairings (even most if this article from an infertility specialist is correct: http://www.infertilitysolutions.com/scrambled.eggs.html ).

That's not to mean I'm unsympathetic to the loss of a pregnancy. Those hopes, those dreams are hard to let go of. The only thing to my mind worse would be the loss of a living child. But the fact is most times we don't even know conception has occurred before the loss comes.

Anytime one defines the moment of conception as the point of person hood you've gone beyond what God has given us in the way of understanding the process. And the danger in defining legally this moment as defining a person is that you push us back to the RC concept that people shouldn't seek to control conception at all. Not only do you stop abortion (which I agree is a horrible abomination), but you stop birth control in all its forms. You open people up to prosecution for child neglect if they say fail to stop smoking or don't take enough folic acid while they are pregnant and it results in a loss or deformation.

And if you really want to stand on the platform of not interfering in "Gods business" then it opens up fertility docs to murder charges since so many embryos fail to implant during IVF. After all, isn't fertility treatment "interfering in God's business" as much as preventing a pregnancy is?

See, defining person hood at the moment of conception does far more than just stopping abortion. It goes way beyond stopping abortion and gets into fooling around with what is my own private business: whether or not I want a pregnancy at 47. I'm still plenty fertile. I could have had at least 10 or 11 children by now. I could be rocking a baby in 9 months. But what I could be doing wouldn't be wise, wouldn't be the best for the potential 11th child, wouldn't be best, for the other 10 (though I only have 4 and one of those is a God child), wouldn't be best for my marriage, wouldn't be best for my health (I suffered from immediate and increasingly worse PPD with every pregnancy). For what cause should I and my husband be denied the ability to decide how many children we should procreate?

Because YOU believe person hood is applied at the moment of conception? Not good enough. There is not enough scripture to prove that point, and plenty to point to person hood being applied later on in the "biological process".

You are going to be surprised to find that I agree with you completely here. But we won't change the disrespect of life in general culture until we get back to the basics of changing hearts and minds for Christ. Only then can the Holy Spirit do His best work.

 

This is one of the worst twisting of scripture I have seen on this board. Being born in a sinful state in no way changes the fact that God has a plan for our lives.

 

You are gonna make me post the scripture in its context aren't you? Okay. Give me a few, I gotta go restart my sewing machine first.

 

Some won't accept the universal applications of the prophecies of Jeremiah and David. That would mean that God predetermined and directed the existence of even those who are the children of rape and incest. That would mean God is sovereign even in matters of gross iniquity, and many cannot accept that.

Calvinism: It's what's true.

 

You don't want to do that it will just hurt your case.

 

So its C/A issue is it? Since I'm not Calvinist I can't accept the truth? Very funny Aaron. :laugh:

Okay, MandyM, where have I twisted Jeremiah's words. Is God not telling the man/child that he was formed for this specific time and place for the specific reason of being a prophet to the nations??? There is no twist here except the one you and Aaron make when you claim this verse applies universally to all mankind. Were you created to be a prophet?? Was Aaron? I don't think so. If you can't apply one part of a passage universally you can't apply the rest.

Let's go on:

Who is David talking about? Umm, HIMSELF! Remember what David was up against when he wrote this. It's an expression of faith that David is doing what God planned and things would work out in the end. It's a hymn of praise that David can rely on God's plans.

What it is not is a universal declaration that every fertilized egg is or will become a person.

But, you go ahead and show me where I twisted the plain reading of scripture. Ya know? when the plain sense makes sense seek no other sense.

 

I don't think there is a definitive answer to this question either in scripture or medical science. I choose life beginning somewhere between the 6th or 7th month in the womb or at birth itself.

Foreknowledge is not a determinative action, it is a natural attribute of an eternal God. Election is a determinative act of God; His gift of grace along with faith and regeneration.

Man does not have to act to be a citizen of eternal damnation. He inherits that through Adam; original sin.

Man's so-called "free will" exists only under God's absolute sovereignty in a theological division we labelled God's Permissive Will,,,,"thus far and no further." A good example of this is found in the story of Jonah and the great fish which redirected Jonah against his own will and stubborness.

As humans, we have great difficulty differentiating between eternal "time" and our human time, and this often leads to confusing, conflicting concepts.

Cheers,

Jim

 

Says who? Who says that every detail must be applied the exact same way? There is no hermeneutical practice that suggests any such thing. In fact you are the first person I have ever heard suggest any such thing. And it is not just myself and Arron that makes this claim. It is a common interpretation and understanding of the plain reading of scripture.

umm....this is not what you just got done saying about him. Anyway, the plain reading of scripture places God's desire and purposes are already in place while in the womb. This cannot be more clear.

The you tried to attach your view to man being born sinful which you avoided here. What I addressed was the false support of this with the other. Being born sinful in no way effects God's permanent plan for our lives.

 

And the danger of constituting life and justifying taking it by coming up with a definition of life as “person hood” is that those who don’t respect life could push their definition of “personhood” up to the point of “taking an axe” (my comparison to the effects of the process of abortion) to already born children. I mean really, is a 3 month old qualified as a person yet? A one year old, heck most of them can barely even walk and are totally dependent still aren't they!? How about traumatic brain inured “persons” do they still fall into the category of “personhood”?

What does defining life as "personhood" open up?

 

H

First, were Aaron and/or Mandy created to be prophets? They were creared to be what God wants them to be.

Second, the problem with your viewpoint is its inverse: you're saying that God only knew Jeremiah and David in the womb. It begs the question of God's omnipotence, because you create the question: does God not know any of the rest of us in the womb? Is the womb the one place we are hidden from Him?

You mention that these passages are about these two men only, and that the rest of us have a sin nature to deal with; I think you misspoke, because the implication is that David and Jeremiah were sinless. As I recall, David had quite the problem with sin. We identify with a "universalist" view of these passages because the greatest heroes of the bible were "just men": Moses was a murderer; David had Uriah killed; Paul watched the coats of others while they killed Stephen. We ascribe a universalist view towards these passages because we recognize ourselves in the shortcomings of these mighty men of God, and realize that God can and does choose to use us, not in the same exact same way, but just as mightily.

You see, context isn't the only consideration when reading scripture; one must also consider why the passage was given to us.

The passages you reference are evidences of God's omnipotence, omniscience, all-knowing, whatever term you choose to use; the power of these scriptures today, to us, is to show us how "in control" He is in all things.