When Does Life Begin?

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.

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.

 

Life begins when God says it does.

 

And when is that TCGreek? :laugh:

 

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.

 

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).

 

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)**

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:

It starts beating 22 days after conception.

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.

 

It probably would

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

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.

No problem

 

I stand with you there brother :thumbs:

 

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)

 

Life begins at conception.