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

[Saint Steven]

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?

 

[fhansen]

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 you can’t scientifically come up with an ironclad point in time or development for when life begins, then are you willing to “make up” that time arbitrarily? That’s what the judge admitted to doing when writing the decision for Roe vs Wade, placing that time at the third trimester. A moment before, the fetus was not a human life, while a moment later it had full legal right to life.

Recognizing it all to happen at conception is to allow God to be God in the matter, and to not be playing God ourselves.

 

[Rajni]

There is another position, based on Scripture, that suggests that life begins at breath rather than at conception. The verses that seem to suggest this are Genesis 2:7, Job 33:4, and Ezekiel 37:5-6.

Being the weirdo I am, I believe we exist independently of -- i.e., pre-birth and post-death -- whatever earth-suit we slip into for any particular incarnation ("Before you were born, I knew you" and all that). So I'm not sure how those might be reconciled, if at all. But I figured I'd contribute the above verses and corresponding position for consideration.

-

 

[chilehed]

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

There is no such doctrine, because the question "what is the first moment of existence of a new member of a species" is not a question pertaining to faith or morals. It's a matter of science, and there is no doubt that the answer is "no later than the fusion of egg and sperm."

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?"

 

[Saint Steven]

If you can’t scientifically come up with an ironclad point in time or development for when life begins, then are you willing to “make up” that time arbitrarily? That’s what the judge admitted to doing when writing the decision for Roe vs Wade, placing that time at the third trimester. A moment before, the fetus was not a human life, while a moment later it had full legal right to life.

Recognizing it all to happen at conception is to allow God to be God in the matter, and to not be playing God ourselves.

Thanks!
I was glad when I saw that you had joined the discussion.

The "viability" of life concept from my rancher friend seemed to not be an arbitrary designation. Not to say that any life could end in a moment without notice, but a continuing viable life seems... workable?

I suppose that puts the designation of life at the end of the conception to viability phase. Then miscarriages, or any other cause of fatality, would be out of the picture.

 

[PloverWing]

Your friend's position is close to a position that I heard in Evangelical circles during my high school and college years -- the view that the embryo or fetus before viability is potential life, rather than actual life. (Nobody used the word "parasite", that I recall.)

Evangelicals later converged on a different view, of course, the view that life begins at conception. But my high school and college years predated that shift.

 

[Saint Steven]

There is another position, based on Scripture, that suggests that life begins at breath rather than at conception. The verses that seem to suggest this are Genesis 2:7, Job 33:4, and Ezekiel 37:5-6.

Being the weirdo I am, I believe we exist independently of -- i.e., pre-birth and post-death -- whatever earth-suit we slip into for any particular incarnation ("Before you were born, I knew you" and all that). So I'm not sure how those might be reconciled, if at all. But I figured I'd contribute the above verses and corresponding position for consideration.

-

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

 

[Saint Steven]

There is no such doctrine, because the question "what is the first moment of existence of a new member of a species" is not a question pertaining to faith or morals. It's a matter of science, and there is no doubt that the answer is "no later than the fusion of egg and sperm."

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?"

What about life "viability"? Or the breath of life idea?

 

[Saint Steven]

Your friend's position is close to a position that I heard in Evangelical circles during my high school and college years -- the view that the embryo or fetus before viability is potential life, rather than actual life. (Nobody used the word "parasite", that I recall.)

Evangelicals later converged on a different view, of course, the view that life begins at conception. But my high school and college years predated that shift.

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

 

[chilehed]

What about life "viability"? Or the breath of life idea?

Same answer.

 

[chevyontheriver]

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?

There is a difference it seems between plain old biological science and bovine husbandry. Sperm and egg meet, sperm enters egg, and a genome configures from the DNA of the sperm and egg. Life begins at conception. Whether ranchers are invested in the survival of a newborn calf that will not walk or eat is a whole different thing.

Life begins at conception, but not all people think so. Some say life begins at implantation, some at some arbitrary date in pregnancy, some at first breath, some when a newborn is accepted by parents.

When the actions of birth control pills were discovered to also prevent implantation of the new life, those favoring use of the pills needed to deflect against the charges of feticide by trying to change the definition of new life to implantation in the uterus. Subtle deflection to try to make contraceptive pills not look like abortion causing pills.

The arbitrary date in pregnancy approach, most famous in Roe v Wade’s trimesters, was all along an arbitrary non-biological thing.

The first breath approach may make abundant sense to some fundamentalist pro-abortionists but it doesn’t account for just how similar a baby is one day before and one day after birth. Let alone how a 20 week premie and baby who came out two weeks late were both not human one day before birth but were one day after birth.

And then there was the ancient Roman practice of waiting until the pater familia decided to accept the newborn into the family. If not, the baby was abandoned at the dump. Where Christians collected them and raised them as humans. This last approach is getting more attention, and your rancher friend’s application to bovine husbandry is being applied to humans.

The biology is not so tricky. The politics is. The doctrine is not so tricky either. It’s the attempts to do away with the unwanted, something that happened in ancient times and still today, that drives people to deny the humanity of those they wish to be free to dispose of.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Thanks!
I was glad when I saw that you had joined the discussion.

The "viability" of life concept from my rancher friend seemed to not be an arbitrary designation. Not to say that any life could end in a moment without notice, but a continuing viable life seems... workable?

I suppose that puts the designation of life at the end of the conception to viability phase. Then miscarriages, or any other cause of fatality, would be out of the picture.

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.

 

[FenderTL5]

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

I recall living through this as well. My best recollection, since I was younger, would be in the 1970s. Evangelicals/protestants were supportive of abortion up to viability when it became legal under Richard Nixon. The Pro-Life view was that of the Catholics. I remember a discussion taking place about which hospital a relative would utilize when going into labor - it would have to be the Baptist Hospital because if something terrible were to happen, the Catholics would risk the mother to save the baby..
Evangelicals had made the switch by the time Reagan ran in 1980.

 

[chevyontheriver]

I recall living through this as well. My best recollection, since I was younger, would be in the 1970s. Evangelicals/protestants were supportive of abortion up to viability when it became legal under Richard Nixon. The Pro-Life view was that of the Catholics. I remember a discussion taking place about which hospital a relative would utilize when going into labor - it would have to be the Baptist Hospital because if something terrible were to happen, the Catholics would risk the mother to save the baby..
Evangelicals had made the switch by the time Reagan ran in 1980.

I recall that Southern Baptists were generally accepting of abortion. The Protestant that began the change was Francis Schaeffer. That is a long and interesting story worth looking up. It really was just a Catholic thing until Schaeffer.

 

[FenderTL5]

I recall that Southern Baptists were generally accepting of abortion. The Protestant that began the change was Francis Schaeffer. That is a long and interesting story worth looking up. It really was just a Catholic thing until Schaeffer.

That could very well be true. I missed being able to vote for Reagan in his first term (80) by one year.
So, what I recall was that of my pre-teen/teenage self where sports were far more important than politics. I vividly recall some older (teenage) girls getting into trouble at school passing around "a letter to my mom" which was about abortion.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

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?

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.

 

[chilehed]

Evangelicals/protestants were supportive of abortion up to viability when it became legal under Richard Nixon.

I'm sure that there was a wide variety of opinion among the official teachings of the various non-Catholic communities back then, as there is now. I attended two Christian schools (one heavily Southern Baptist, the other Presbyterian) from '70 through '76, and those communities were both vigorously anti-abortion.

 

[FenderTL5]

I'm sure that there was a wide variety of opinion among the official teachings of the various non-Catholic communities back then, as there is now. I attended two Christian schools (one heavily Southern Baptist, the other Presbyterian) from '70 through '76, and those communities were both vigorously anti-abortion.

Very well true. I'm sure my recollections are localized.

I can say that I'm fairly certain non-Catholic groups didn't coalese as a unified political block on the abortion issue until Falwell's Moral Majority.. late 70s, which helped Reagan get elected the first time.

 

[d taylor]

-
​

Jesus looks like He states life begins at the water birth.

“Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

For a person to enter the Kingdom of God the first requirement is water birth.

 

[Saint Steven]

chilehed said: ↑
There is no such doctrine, because the question "what is the first moment of existence of a new member of a species" is not a question pertaining to faith or morals. It's a matter of science, and there is no doubt that the answer is "no later than the fusion of egg and sperm."

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?"

What about life "viability"? Or the breath of life idea?

Same answer.

Random thought, I guess... but what about the free will of a baptized infant?
The parents make the decision for the child, correct?
Infants, and certainly the unborn, both need care and protection, but it really has nothing to do with their rights or will in the matter. (thinking out loud, I meant no offense)