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

[PloverWing]

Is "Saint Steven" really ignorant of the biblical verses referenced on God knowing us before we were born and the OT references to harm to pregnant women?

If not, then Saint Stephen is merely being pedantic.

Let's be civil to each other here, and assume that we're all familiar with the Bible verses that apply to this question.

 

[atpollard]

Let's be civil to each other here, and assume that we're all familiar with the Bible verses that apply to this question.

Making that assumption is what got me in trouble in the first place ...

What possible argument could claim that it is not alive at any point after conception? “Sorry, you have something dead growing inside your body” … is that really a viable argument?

One can debate its “personhood” … but not it’s “life”.

As far as the “doctrine” … scripture is clear that God “opens” and “closes” wombs … so God regulates conception. The OT Law supported the death of a life if a woman was struck and it caused a miscarriage … God says the unborn was a person that was killed (not a parasite). God knew us before we were born … God knows people, not tissue.

I hope that helps (and you can find and read the verses for yourself).

I hope that helps (and you can find and read the verses for yourself).

Be warmed and fed. (by someone else)

Is "Saint Steven" really ignorant of the biblical verses referenced on God knowing us before we were born and the OT references to harm to pregnant women?

If not, then Saint Stephen is merely being pedantic.

 

[Saint Steven]

I wouldn't say my almost glib answer is positing that pregnancy is caused by unzipped men, it's just that that's more or less where I landed with the issue in taking the entire Bible into consideration, human sexual history and for the fact that the Abortion issue was one of the prime issues I had to study in Bio-Medical Ethics some years ago.

But yeah. I'm Pro-Zippa, suckas!! Jezebels galore notwithstanding!

[And no, this comment is not directed at you, Steven.]

Thanks, Phil. No worries about being directed at me.

This, at least in my mind, raises the whole issue of the morality of birth control. We take it for granted today, but... ???

 

[Saint Steven]

Sir, a parasite is still a living thing. So, your conversation with the rancher actually affirms that the unborn child is a living thing.

Thanks for your post. Welcome to the discussion, and the forum. You appear to be new here?

Just to be clear, my rancher friend was making a distinction between life and viable life. He wasn't denying that the fetus "parasite" in question was alive, but he did hold out judgment on viability until the animal could see to its own needs. Which I thought was an interesting point.

 

[Saint Steven]

Is "Saint Steven" really ignorant of the biblical verses referenced on God knowing us before we were born and the OT references to harm to pregnant women?

Thank you.
This actually gets to, and even supports, my point.

If this is the best we can come up with for a biblical defense of life beginning at conception, then we have lost the argument. Here's why IMHO...

And this further supports the "viable" life aspect.

Those acknowledged in the scripture as God knowing from conception obviously had a viable life, and God knew about it in advance. But this does NOT support the idea that VIABLE life begins at conception. Not every conception ends in viable life. Right?

 

[Saint Steven]

HOw Ironclad? Most people get it from the scriptures, and they and I would say it is clear, although not a fundamental of the faith.

Thanks for joining us in the discussion.

This is the reason for the topic. We have all bought into the dogma about life beginning at conception. But does that claim really stand up?

 

[Saint Steven]

The human body rejects 40 to 80% of fertilized eggs. Are they all now dead persons?

Can you expand on that?
Interesting point, but I don't know what it is based on.

 

[JMireles]

The human body rejects 40 to 80% of fertilized eggs. Are they all now dead persons?

Yes, they're dead humans. However, those that are rejected or miscarried die natural deaths. As such, attempting to draw moral parallels between the two is disingenuous at best.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Thanks, Phil. No worries about being directed at me.

This, at least in my mind, raises the whole issue of the morality of birth control. We take it for granted today, but... ???

Careful! Going down that path could make you Catholic.

 

[Homeby5]

Isn't "the depravity of man' part of Calvinism?

I guess...buts its also a part of just about every other Christian sect. Calvinist doesnt own it no more than Baptist own evangilism.

 

[atpollard]

I guess...buts its also a part of just about every other Christian sect. Calvinist doesnt own it no more than Baptist own evangelism.

Yeah, it pretty much just indicates that somebody read Romans 3 or Ephesians 2 or any of the many other Biblical verses that support the inadequacy of man and our unhealthy attraction to sin (hence the NEED for God to send a SAVIOR and the reason following the LAW saved nobody).

 

[Saint Steven]

I guess...buts its also a part of just about every other Christian sect. Calvinist doesnt own it no more than Baptist own evangilism.

Are you always this evasive?

 

[Fervent]

Thanks for your post. Welcome to the discussion, and the forum. You appear to be new here?

Just to be clear, my rancher friend was making a distinction between life and viable life. He wasn't denying that the fetus "parasite" in question was alive, but he did hold out judgment on viability until the animal could see to its own needs. Which I thought was an interesting point.

That's a dangerous standard, since it can easily be extended beyond pregnancy to the infirmed and other eugenic-like propositions. The argument over abortion is about the sanctity of human life, so whether or not the life is "viable" is a separate question entirely.

 

[John Owen]

Thanks for joining us in the discussion.

This is the reason for the topic. We have all bought into the dogma about life beginning at conception. But does that claim really stand up?

How does it stand up? For those who believe the Bible, pretty well. For those who don't, not at all.

 

[Saint Steven]

How does it stand up? For those who believe the Bible, pretty well. For those who don't, not at all.

What is that biblical case? I seem to have a hard time getting anyone to own up to it.
And frankly, last time I looked into it, it looked pretty shaky. But you seem very confident.
What are the key points biblically?

It seems to me that the case made is more reliant on a conservative Christian political position than anything else.

Saint Steven said:
Thanks for joining us in the discussion.

This is the reason for the topic. We have all bought into the dogma about life beginning at conception. But does that claim really stand up?

 

[chevyontheriver]

What is that biblical case? I seem to have a hard time getting anyone to own up to it.
And frankly, last time I looked into it, it looked pretty shaky. But you seem very confident.
What are the key points biblically?

It seems to me that the case made is more reliant on a conservative Christian political position than anything else.

Saint Steven said:
Thanks for joining us in the discussion.

This is the reason for the topic. We have all bought into the dogma about life beginning at conception. But does that claim really stand up?

I think it is far more a Christian anthropology than politics. We knew from way back that the way of the world was wrong when it came to how we treat little people. From the Roman pater familias who had the absolute right to not accept a child he didn't want to the potions for contraception or abortion, and mystery religion practices, common Greco-Roman sexual practice didn't fit how Christians saw humanity.

The Didache speaks about abortion as something that just isn't to be done. So it's way older than some 'Moral Majority' thing. Falwell was actyally a latecomer. And he only got it from Francis Schaeffer anyhow.

 

[Saint Steven]

We knew from way back that the way of the world was wrong when it came to how we treat little people.

That's an angle worth exploring. The human rights issue as it concerns the child.
Usual presented as the rights of the mother. And a decision between her and her doctor (there's someone missing here)

I still don't think the biblical case, which I suppose Christian Anthropology is based on, is pretty weak.
It seems that the scriptures could be taken as referring to a single viable human. Not to be taken as a blanket statement about the unborn.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Thanks, Phil. No worries about being directed at me.

This, at least in my mind, raises the whole issue of the morality of birth control. We take it for granted today, but... ???

... well, y'know., I blame this whole situation we're in today on the media. Back when they started publishing all of those "Onan the Barbarian" novels, everything went to pot!

 

[coffee4u]

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?

If the zygote is not a life then how it growing and developing? Is it viable for its stage and environment it is in? Yes. It's designed to live and grow where God placed it inside the womb. It changes and develops but so does a baby change and develop into an adult. Is it viable outside the womb, no, but then neither is a person in a comma. Both are in a situation of needing support.
An infant left to itself won't grow either, it is reliant on someone older who can feed and clean and comfort them. In fact a newborn needs more care outside than inside the womb.

Psalm 139:16, NIV: Your eyes saw my unformed body; all the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.

This zygote is unformed yet it is still that man's 'body' and God saw him. Not just saw his body but who he would become.

 

[Saint Steven]

Psalm 139:16, NIV: Your eyes saw my unformed body; all the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.

This zygote is unformed yet it is still that man's 'body' and God saw him. Not just saw his body but who he would become.

The question is: Is this true only of the Psalmist, or of EVERY conceived "zygote" (as you say) ?
God knew that this would be a viable life. That isn't true of every zygote.