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

[Saint Steven]

I've yet to hear a coherent response to the question "how can there be such a thing as human rights if no human has them prior to birth?"

On another topic someone brought up the wrath of God and the OT text about God ordering the enemies infants be dashed against the rocks. (Isaiah 13:15-16) If a person believes God did that, what does it say about God's thoughts concerning human rights of infants, and the unborn, I suppose?

 

[Saint Steven]

Well , it is kind of obvious that conception is the starting point for the beginning of life. Let's be clear, the cells are alive and are in the beginning stages of forming a fetus. Stopping the process midstream before it becomes viable is abortion.
That being said we probably shouldn't be compared to cattle.
Blessings.

Thanks for joining the discussion.

As we know, pregnancies don't always go to term (birth), if abortion is murder, who should we blame for the loss of a child that doesn't go full term? (I hope I stated this understandably)

 

[Saint Steven]

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.

 

[PloverWing]

Approximately what year did you see the shift?
Was it a purely political shift? (with doctrinal "proof-texts" in tow, of course)

It was sometime in the 1990s that I realized that a shift had taken place in the Evangelical world. The shift had already been accomplished by the time I was paying attention to it, so that probably places it earlier, in the 1980s and early 90s.

My personal history is that I grew up Southern Baptist, and I attended evangelical schools for K-12 and college. Shortly after graduation (early 1980s), I became Episcopalian, and I was somewhat distant from the Evangelical world for a few years. Then sometime in the 1990s, I visited a Southern Baptist church with my husband, and the literature racks were full of anti-abortion pamphlets. In times past, such racks would have contained pamphlets on a wider variety of subjects, like the Four Spiritual Laws or tithing or why gambling is bad. I remember looking at all those pamphlets, all on this one subject and all taking the same position, and realizing that something had happened when I wasn't paying attention. Now I did start paying attention, and I saw that the wider Evangelical world had also undergone a similar change.

I honestly don't know how much of the shift was politically driven (with proof-texts, as you say) and how much was genuinely theological. I'm still sorting through the history myself. A number of things happened at the same time in the 1980s. We saw the rise of the Moral Majority; that's a political movement. We saw an ultra-conservative movement sweep through the Southern Baptist Convention, which included some anti-feminist elements; that's mostly theological. We saw various sorts of reactions against the cultural movements of the late 20th century (that is, reactions against the civil rights movements and also against the "free love" movement); some of that was cultural inertia as much as anything. In reality, I think culture and politics and theology all swirled together as the conservative churches formed their beliefs. There's documentation of people using this for their political gain, but I think there was also genuine ethical reasoning going on too.

 

[Rajni]

Thanks for weighing in on this.
I think your points are well worth discussing.
Would you be willing to expand the thoughts a bit. I'm intrigued.

I had heard of the breath of life.
That comes up in the NDEs discussion. Does life end when we stop breathing?

Also interested in your preexistence idea. When is the mind and individuality of the soul created?

If you had a brain transplant... who would you be? - LOL

There might be two types of breath to consider – one being the physical breath that our lungs process, and the other being “pneuma”, which can mean spirit or soul.

So I think life continues in spite of the material breath ceasing, because our pneuma goes on and on, which explains the accounts of temporarily clinically dead folks hovering around the operating table fully aware of what’s being said and what’s going on in the room.

As for when our souls were created, that’s a great question. I think some believe our souls have always existed – no beginning and no end just like the Creator – but then there's the term “old souls” (as contrasted with “young(er) souls”, maybe?), so perhaps we have a definitive beginning but then just exist forever going forward, with each of us starting off at different times. I don’t know for sure at this point.

When it comes to brain transplants, I think the brain is to our soul what our computer is to us. It’s just a tool and not the be-all and end-all of our being. So, a theoretical brain-transplant would be akin to getting a different computer. You’re still the same “you”, just using a different computer.

That’s my understanding, at this point anyway.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

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?

A couple passages came to mind, then I found the following links that refer to more scripture.
7 Bible verses about Opening The Womb
8 Bible verses about Harming Pregnant Women

According to the scripture, God takes notices when pregnant women are ripped open, and says this in direct juxtaposition to little children being dashed against the stones.

Since those who are nursing and those who are pregnant are in the same category in general conversation, it would stand to reason that God treats the slaughter of children inside and outside the womb as the same thing.

the above passages provide similar examples where pro-life-ness was not the point of the verse .. but it illustrates that little children and womb infants are regarded in the same category.

 

[Hmm]

Continuing viable life might also deny humanity to the terminally ill. If I have days to live I’m not very viable. I can be euthanized as I’m not very human anymore.

I agree, that is where it could lead to. I don't think the viability question makes much sense and I think the law recognised this in cases where if you kill a pregnant women you,.AFAIK, are also held responsible for the killing of the unborn child, whether it's viable to independent life or not.

For me, the hard cases such as should a raped woman be forced to bear the child are difficult and I don't know where I stand on them.

 

[chevyontheriver]

For me, the hard cases such as should a raped woman be forced to bear the child are difficult and I don't know where I stand on them.

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

How about neither?

 

[chevyontheriver]

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.

 

[chilehed]

To all topic posters on this thread:
Over twenty posts and nothing said about ProLife doctrine.

I responded to the topic of the OP, not something different.

 

[FenderTL5]

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.

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."

 

[Saint Steven]

In reality, I think culture and politics and theology all swirled together as the conservative churches formed their beliefs. There's documentation of people using this for their political gain, but I think there was also genuine ethical reasoning going on too.

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)

 

[Lukaris]

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.

 

[Homeby5]

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."

Thanks for that as this isn't frequently noted.
The question to me isn't the theology (science of Theos) of proving life begins at conception because no one can scientifically prove the mind of God when He inserts a soul into a human. But using Biblical, historical and systematic doctrine...abortion is murder.
To me...the onus is on pro abortion crowd to prove the zygote is NOT recognized by God as a human life. If not prove to me that God recognizes life at a different time in development. I know when we look at the devastating consequence of being morally wrong with this decision, how can a Christian not err on the side of the zygote being a human?

 

[Homeby5]

Thanks for joining the discussion.

As we know, pregnancies don't always go to term (birth), if abortion is murder, who should we blame for the loss of a child that doesn't go full term? (I hope I stated this understandably)

Blame it on God. He alone has the authority to be the giver and taker of life...

 

[Saint Steven]

There might be two types of breath to consider – one being the physical breath that our lungs process, and the other being “pneuma”, which can mean spirit or soul.

Hard to separate the two, I think. In a medical emergency we use resuscitation techniques to get a person to breathe again, thus saving their physical life.

So I think life continues in spite of the material breath ceasing, because our pneuma goes on and on, which explains the accounts of temporarily clinically dead folks hovering around the operating table fully aware of what’s being said and what’s going on in the room.

You and I are on the same page for much of this. I call this "pneuma" our soul, mostly as a way to organize my thoughts on how the body, soul and spirit parts of us work together. To me, the soul is our identity apart from our physical body. Basically our mind, which you describe below.

As for when our souls were created, that’s a great question. I think some believe our souls have always existed – no beginning and no end just like the Creator – but then there's the term “old souls” (as contrasted with “young(er) souls”, maybe?), so perhaps we have a definitive beginning but then just exist forever going forward, with each of us starting off at different times. I don’t know for sure at this point.

I think this idea was a part of Judaism. The soul returning to the maker. Part of a "pool" of souls. Not really theology, but some biblical basis. I haven't studied into it much.

When it comes to brain transplants, I think the brain is to our soul what our computer is to us. It’s just a tool and not the be-all and end-all of our being. So, a theoretical brain-transplant would be akin to getting a different computer. You’re still the same “you”, just using a different computer.

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

 

[Homeby5]

On another topic someone brought up the wrath of God and the OT text about God ordering the enemies infants be dashed against the rocks. (Isaiah 13:15-16) If a person believes God did that, what does it say about God's thoughts concerning human rights of infants, and the unborn, I suppose?

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.

 

[eleos1954]

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?

The placenta in the female body does not begin to form unless it has a reason to ...
The placenta begins to form after a fertilized egg implants into the uterus around seven to 10 days after conception.

Fertilization .... without fertilization life will not begin.

Life Begins at Fertilization with the Embryo's Conception.

The Pro-choice argument isn't so much over when life begins ... rather that does a women have the right to end that life? and now has gone down the slippery slope into ... does a women have the right to end the life within her including up to birth outside of her body for any reason ... or for no reason at all (of which I find horrific).

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Thanks for joining the discussion.

As we know, pregnancies don't always go to term (birth), if abortion is murder, who should we blame for the loss of a child that doesn't go full term? (I hope I stated this understandably)

Well I guess that is at the core of this debate.
Blessings

 

[Clare73]

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?

It's not doctrine. . .it's biology.

The one-cell living human zygote has all the genetic material and DNA for growth and development into a complete human being for all stages of life, from infancy to expiration. Absolutely nothing has to be added to it, but an environment in which it can live and grow.