How ironclad is the "life begins at conception" doctrine?

[PloverWing]

Thanks for your informative post. I like this observation from the very end of your post.
Was the "culture" part that you saw, the social aspect of conservative Protestant church? (evangelicalism as a sub-society)

Yes, the element of people liking the way things were when they were growing up, and not wanting that to change. I think that has to be acknowledged as part of the picture.

 

[chilehed]

no one can scientifically prove the mind of God when He inserts a soul into a human.

By definition, the soul is the principle that animates a living body, therefore the soul is present from the moment of conception.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Ancient Christians in many places followed tradition from the book of Enoch which attests to doctrines like the Trinity, the prayers of saints etc. Enoch also directly attests to life in the womb and that it was a fallen Angel that taught the procedure of abortion.

From chapter 69


Chapter 69]

1 And after this judgement they shall terrify and make them to tremble because they have shown this to those who dwell on the earth. 2 And behold

further on:

And the fifth was named Kasdeja: this is he who showed the children of men all the wicked smitings of spirits and demons, and the smitings of the embryo in the womb, that it may pass away, and [the smitings of the soul]


The Book of Enoch, Section II


An ancient church manual ( the Didache) from about 100 AD specifically uses the term abortion as a form of murder.


Chapter 2. The Second Commandment: Grave Sin Forbidden. And the second commandment of the Teaching; You shall not commit murder, you…….

you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is born. You


Didache. The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles (translation Roberts-Donaldson).


While these are totally valid evidence that Christianity is pro life and opposed to abortion, I cannot fully say that this positively includes life at conception. I tend to believe that these do support life at conception.

I do not mean to include this for any political commentary but just for perspective on faith tradition. Enoch is an interesting writing in that it seems interwoven among small areas of the New Testament. St. Jude quoted a small portion in his brief epistle, it has connections to the book of Revelation, & even Daniel in the Old Testament.

The idea of conception, sperm meets egg, DNA fusion, and the like were not understood until recently, most of it only within the last 100 years. So it is a bit of an anachronism to think the Church would have put in neat biological terms of ‘life begins at conception’ although there would be some consistency of approach. Which might make a bit of sense of the traditional ban on contraception for Christians.

 

[chevyontheriver]

EXACTLY !!!!!!!!!!!!!
The mind is like the data on a computer hard drive. Which can be transferred to another "host".

So can we be virtualized and become independent of the wet-ware meat we have now? Transhumanism?

 

[chevyontheriver]

Yes, the element of people liking the way things were when they were growing up, and not wanting that to change. I think that has to be acknowledged as part of the picture.

There’s that. But also the general obliviousness we all had before 1973. I remember one high school teacher saying something in January of 1973 but otherwise it just wasn’t on our radar. The Catholic Church had been fighting this from before 1973 but it wasn’t obvious to me.

 

[PloverWing]

The Catholic Church had been fighting this from before 1973 but it wasn’t obvious to me.

When I describe a shift in views, I have in mind Evangelical Protestants in particular. The Catholic Church has consistently opposed abortion for a much longer time.

 

[BrotherJJ]

Scripture perspective:

Ps 147:13 For he hath strengthened the bars of thy gates; he hath blessed thy children within thee.
(MY NOTE: Scripture places no distinction between the unborn & born)

A woman who is "with child" has another living soul (seperate dna) "within" her. As she progresses she becomes "great with child" (Lk 2:5), until she is "ready to be delivered" (Rev 12:4; see also 1 Sam 4:19; Isa 26:17).

1 Sam 4:19 His daughter in law, Phinehas' wife, "was with child, near to be delivered": and when she heard the tidings that the ark of God was taken, and that her father in law and her husband were dead, she bowed herself and travailed; for her pains came upon her.
(MY NOTE: "was with child, near to be delivered". "WAS WITH CHILD")

Ecc 11:5 As thou knowest not what is the way of the spirit, nor how the bones do grow in the womb of her that is with child: even so thou knowest not the works of God who maketh all.
(MY NOTE "With Child" in her womb)

Lk 2:5 To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.
(MY NOTE: Being great, "WITH CHILD"!)

Lk 1:41 And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:
(MY NOTE: The UNBORN BABE LEAPED in her womb)

Isa 26:17 As ""a woman with child, that draweth near the time of her delivery"" is in pain, and crieth out in her pangs; so have we been in thy sight, O LORD.
(MY NOTE: Before birth, Scripture Declares, the woman is "WITH CHILD")

Science today agrees, life begins at conception:
Sperm & ovum are both "living cells" prior to fertilization. The seed (in this case sperm) cannot by itself germinate & bring forth new life. The seed meets the fertile groud (the ovum) dies & a new life begins. This process is known as fertilization (conception).

The American Heritage Science Dictionary defines “conception” as “the formation of a zygote resulting from the union of a sperm and egg cell; fertilization.”

Finally:
Modern term (ABORTION) removes the association with the terminating of life (murder). The terminology termination (KILLING) of that life. Is merely labeled abortion (the cancellation of a mission) rather than murder (the ungodly shedding of innocent blood).

 

[chevyontheriver]

When I describe a shift in views, I have in mind Evangelical Protestants in particular. The Catholic Church has consistently opposed abortion for a much longer time.

Yeah, they shifted. It was Francis Schaeffer, belonging to the RPCES (Reformed Presbyterian Church Evangelical Synod, now part of the PCA) that got the shift going, and that quite late in his life. Did you ever read any Francis Schaeffer?

 

[PloverWing]

Yeah, they shifted. It was Francis Schaeffer, belonging to the RPCES (Reformed Presbyterian Church Evangelical Synod, now part of the PCA) that got the shift going, and that quite late in his life. Did you ever read any Francis Schaeffer?

I read quite a few of his books in high school. I remember that at the time, I found many of his arguments persuasive (though sometimes more Reformed than I was comfortable with). I haven't reread the books since then, so I can't say how my adult self would evaluate them; I'll have to go pull a couple of them off the shelf and take a look.

His film Whatever Happened to the Human Race? came out while I was a student at Wheaton, and I watched it there. It seemed different from the earlier, more philosophical books. At the time, I didn't expect it to have that much of an impact, but I think you're right, that it turned out to be much more influential among Evangelicals than I had expected.

 

[chevyontheriver]

I read quite a few of his books in high school. I remember that at the time, I found many of his arguments persuasive (though sometimes more Reformed than I was comfortable with). I haven't reread the books since then, so I can't say how my adult self would evaluate them; I'll have to go pull a couple of them off the shelf and take a look.

His film Whatever Happened to the Human Race? came out while I was a student at Wheaton, and I watched it there. It seemed different from the earlier, more philosophical books. At the time, I didn't expect it to have that much of an impact, but I think you're right, that it turned out to be much more influential among Evangelicals than I had expected.

I had read so many of his books. I eventually found he had missed the boat when he tried to blame his line of despair on Thomas Aquinas, but he was otherwise pretty darn good. He almost made me a Calvinist. Anyhow, later in his life, while living in Rochester Minnesota, he developed cancer and went to the Mayo Clinic there. Mayo uses two hospitals, Methodist and St. Mary's. He naturally did not want to go to the Catholic hospital so he went to Methodist. But then he found Methodist hospital did abortions, so he transferred out of there to St. Mary's. He even came to appreciate the Crucifixes in each of the St. Mary's rooms. It was about this time that abortion became his issue. His obituary even called him a noted pro-life activist.

 

[Hmm]

Hmmm, innocent woman, innocent child, which one to kill?

How about neither?

I don't understand your comment. I wasn't talking about killing an innocent woman but about whether a woman who got pregnant through rape should be forced by law to have the child. I said that I don't know what my view is on this.

All that's clear to me in this scenario is that if the woman had an abortion it would be a tragedy of circumstance, and her decision was made to try to alleviate a tragedy already occurring. I don't think any woman would choose to get pregnant by rape any more than they would choose to get raped.

While I believe in the sanctity of life and that life starts at conception, I'm uncomfortable with the idea of men making the decision for women in these hard cases. As I say, I don't know where I stand on this issue. I don't see it as a simple question, as I realise you don't either.

What if the woman had a medical condition and would die if the pregnancy continued? Should she have the child? What if that woman was your wife?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

HELP !!!!!!!!

Recent events, in the USA, have pushed the abortion rights issue back into the arena of politics. Individual states must decide on the issue after the Supreme Court overruling of Roe vs. Wade. Correct me if I did state that properly, thanks.

My purpose is not to start a topic about politics, but doctrine. Controversial Christian doctrine. ("Prolife" doctrine)

I had a long discussion with an agnostic friend about the subject of abortion, and more specifically, when life begins. His perspective was very interesting, to say the least.

He grew up on a ranch. He has lots of experience with the birthing and weening of calves, and very successful experience with artificial insemination of cattle. If you want to know anything about bovine reproduction, he's a great source. Anyway...

I was a bit shocked when he informed me that they consider a calf fetus to be a parasite until it can be independent enough to live on its own. By "live" they mean able to walk and eat on its own. Otherwise, it's not a "viable" life.

He didn't seem to deny that "viable" life was at the end of a process of the beginning of that life, but without ongoing viability, was it really a life? His point was that viable life does not begin at conception.

I was somewhat familiar with the Prolife doctrine apologetics, having followed the church crowd with the "Life begins at conception" mantra. Was even voting that way. Basically one-issue voting. (guilty as charged)

I suppose I was a victim to a one-sided discussion on the subject. We had never taken much time to hear the other side out, or in the rare cases that we did, we fell back on the Prolife doctrinal position. We even made bumper-stickers (labels) that read: "God is Prolife".

I haven't declared myself to be ProChoice, but have pulled back into a neutral position on the issue. I can see both sides now. What to do, what to do... ???

How ironclad is the "life begins at conception" doctrine?

Personally, I'm "pro-Zipper."

And unless the laws of physics and biology change, I'm pretty sure that if there is a firm 'keep your zipper up like you're supposed to, Lads,' it'd alleviate much of the issue of the said grievance in this thread.

But, I know. It's not to be, and such is the world of SIN.

 

[Clare73]

Scripture perspective:

Ps 147:13 For he hath strengthened the bars of thy gates; he hath blessed thy children within thee.
(MY NOTE: Scripture places no distinction between the unborn & born)

A woman who is "with child" has another living soul (seperate dna) "within" her. As she progresses she becomes "great with child" (Lk 2:5), until she is "ready to be delivered" (Rev 12:4; see also 1 Sam 4:19; Isa 26:17).

1 Sam 4:19 His daughter in law, Phinehas' wife, "was with child, near to be delivered": and when she heard the tidings that the ark of God was taken, and that her father in law and her husband were dead, she bowed herself and travailed; for her pains came upon her.
(MY NOTE: "was with child, near to be delivered". "WAS WITH CHILD")

Ecc 11:5 As thou knowest not what is the way of the spirit, nor how the bones do grow in the womb of her that is with child: even so thou knowest not the works of God who maketh all.
(MY NOTE "With Child" in her womb)

Lk 2:5 To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.
(MY NOTE: Being great, "WITH CHILD"!)

Lk 1:41 And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:
(MY NOTE: The UNBORN BABE LEAPED in her womb)

Isa 26:17 As ""a woman with child, that draweth near the time of her delivery"" is in pain, and crieth out in her pangs; so have we been in thy sight, O LORD.
(MY NOTE: Before birth, Scripture Declares, the woman is "WITH CHILD")

Science today agrees, life begins at conception:
Sperm & ovum are both "living cells" prior to fertilization.

They are "living" as a leaf is living,
but they are not "life" as an acorn is life.

The seed (in this case sperm) cannot by itself germinate & bring forth new life. The seed meets the fertile groud (the ovum) dies & a new life begins. This process is known as fertilization (conception).

The American Heritage Science Dictionary defines “conception” as “the formation of a zygote resulting from the union of a sperm and egg cell; fertilization.”

Finally:
Modern term (ABORTION) removes the association with the terminating of life (murder). The terminology termination (KILLING) of that life. Is merely labeled abortion (the cancellation of a mission) rather than murder (the ungodly shedding of innocent blood).

 

[Clare73]

Personally, I'm "pro-Zipper."

And unless the laws of physics and biology change,
I'm pretty sure that if there is a firm 'keep your zipper up like you're supposed to, Lads,' it'd alleviate much of the issue of the said grievance in this thread.

But, I know. It's not to be, and such is the world of SIN.

Who knew it could be so simple!

 

[jefferis peterson]

Just a few points:
Fetus is Latin for Young child or Baby. Using abstract language covers up reality and hide what is really going on. The question is "whose image is on the child?"
Genesis calls Jacob and Esau "Sons" before they are born.
Luke 1:41 says the brephos, the Baby, lept in Elizabeth's womb on hearing the voice of Mary. If you are going to be governed by scripture rather than a farmer's opinion, then the scripture is clear: they are children of God before they are born. And abortion then is murder of one made in God's image.
"Even as you have done it unto the least of these (the weakest and most helpless of these) you have done it unto ME."

 

[Homeby5]

I don't understand your comment. I wasn't talking about killing an innocent woman but about whether a woman who got pregnant through rape should be forced by law to have the child. I said that I don't know what my view is on this.

All that's clear to me in this scenario is that if the woman had an abortion it would be a tragedy of circumstance, and her decision was made to try to alleviate a tragedy already occurring. I don't think any woman would choose to get pregnant by rape any more than they would choose to get raped.

While I believe in the sanctity of life and that life starts at conception, I'm uncomfortable with the idea of men making the decision for women in these hard cases. As I say, I don't know where I stand on this issue. I don't see it as a simple question, as I realise you don't either.

What if the woman had a medical condition and would die if the pregnancy continued? Should she have the child? What if that woman was your wife?

Abortion and rape created life are two different issues...completely. No one under any circumstance has the right to murder another living human. If we as a society feel the need to take a like for rape, then take the rapist life...not the life of the baby.
God created biology and the female carries the life of the child. How it is created means nothing. If the female doesn't want to keep the child...then there are avenues to give it away. My daughter did just that.
As far as medical condition threatening the life of the Mother, in today's world of modern science that is VERY rare. I haven't Googled it but I bet it's under 10 a year. But lets' go down that road. Then the flip is applied. The Baby has no right to kill the Mother. Sooo....in those very rare situations the Mother can make a decision to save her own life and then let the doctors do what they can to save the child. Sacrificing your life for your child is not a moral equivalent as the killing your child.

 

[Saint Steven]

Saint Steven said: ↑
To all topic posters on this thread:
Over twenty posts and nothing said about ProLife doctrine. Perhaps that answers my question, but the thread is still young.

Partially because good biology solves the matter, and good doctrine can just agree with it.

I guess that explains the doctrinal vacuum on this topic. - LOL

 

[Saint Steven]

The ancient Church established Its stance early on, this is from the Didache (Estimated Range of Dating: 50-120 A.D.)
"..the second commandment of the Teaching; You shall not commit murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not commit pederasty, you shall not commit fornication, you shall not steal, you shall not practice magic, you shall not practice witchcraft, you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is born."

Very informative, thanks.

I wonder which came first: run-on sentences, or run-on commandments. - LOL

 

[Saint Steven]

Gods thoughts were just that. He punished society for turning away from worshipping Him. Remember, the question is not that why does God kill and punish some, it's why DOESN"T He punish us all with immediate death because that's what we all deserve. Everyone of us who draws another breath is because of God's grace. Our society today has come to expect the loving grace from God but we don't deserve it.
One could make a serious theological argument that when God ordered the death of the infants, God simply gave them grace by ended their life early and taking them home with Him. The death of the infants was to punish the idolatrous parents.

I'm not sure, but you may be suffering from Calvinism?

 

[Homeby5]

I'm not sure, but you may be suffering from Calvinism?

Well...John Calvin may have believed this also...but he didn't create the doctrine. It's clear throughout all of our Christian scripture. Why do you assign this concept to Calvin?