Life Begins at Conception

[Orthodox Andrew]

Do you agree? And if so, why?

 

[Matrona]

Life absolutely begins at conception.

If it's not alive, what is it? It's obviously not dead. What about when the baby dies in utero? The baby can't die if it wasn't ALIVE in the first place!

If it's not human, what is it? A fish? A cat? Women give birth every day, and every single one is a baby HUMAN.

 

[Momzilla]

Here's the way I see it: either life begins at conception, or it doesn't. But, if life doesn't begin at conception, we have no way of knowing when it does begin, so we are best off assuming that it begins at conception.

 

[Orthodox Andrew]

But does it have a soul? The reason why I ask, is because I would like to know the theology behind why abortion is wrong. I must fully understand the argument.

 

[OrthodoxDragon]

YES LIFE BEGIS AT CONCEPTION! ...I think people just want to think it doens't because the child cannot yet function outside of the mothers body untill a certain period of time. People do the whole thing "if i can't see it its not there" they do that and instead its "if I can't see it or touch it now its not alive"..its idiotic and awful..but that's how I think people think

As for the soul question I believe souls are eternal so yes I think the baby has a soul and that soul is born at conception.

 

[Rage4Christ]

if life begins at conception most forms of birth control are murder.
Additionally, sex itself could be seen as murder-- since all fertilized eggs don't necessarily develop completely. Often, after sex and fertilization they don't implant and are lost.

If life begins at conception sex becomes a morally ambigious act.

Trying to draw bright lines of what "is" something and "isn't" something is a rational, linguistic distraction toward the ethical choices that are required to live a life of Christ, and find the Christ within.

 

[MattMMMan17]

I'm copying and pasting an old entry from my webjournal that touched on this subject. But before that, I'd just like to note that murder only becomes murder when there is premeditated intent to kill. Sex is a procreative act. And could NEVER be seen as murder. Interfering with this conjugal act by attempting to reduce the chances of procreation is not just morally ambiguous, but morally reprehensible. One of God's greatest miracles is the creation of life, and doing anything with the intent to hinder His miracles. . .well. . .I surely wouldn't want to risk it.

"I once was a fetus. Who will deny this—surely a fetus was what I once was? But now if the right-to-life (understood as the right not to be deprived of life by human decision unless one has deserved such deprivation through a crime that one has been duly convicted of) is an essential property of me, part of what makes me who I am, then since I was a fetus, that fetus was I, and hence it also possessed the right-to-life, as the right to life is an essential property. Alternately, as is reasonable, being a person is an essential property of me. I could not be myself without being a person. Whatever is not a person is also not identical with me. But I was once a fetus. Hence, that fetus was a person, because I was that fetus and being a person is an essential property of me. But it is a conceptual truth that all persons have a right-to-life. Hence, so does the fetus.
At one point of my life. I was nothing more than a cell. A single cell. Microscopic. Would you have stripped me of my right to life? Would you have prevented me from living the first 9 months of my life in my mother's womb? Would you justify doing so merely by noting that I was composed of a single cell? That was me. I'm all grown up. No person has a right to end the life of another unless it is for the protection of others and no other means of detainment are possible.

Let us imagine a situation involving two people, Dick and Jane. Long story short, Dick rapes Jane against her will. Her right to choose was brutally ripped away from her by Dick though his actions. The end result? Emotional trauma for Jane most likely, and me. There I am, in Jane's womb. Through no decision of my own, mind you, but through the brutal act of rape which was in essence the denial of another person's(Jane's) right to choose to engage in sexual activity. That is lost. She can never regain it(For that instance). Now I exist. She becomes aware of my presence in her. She did not want me, she does not want me. I am an inconvenience, and it is NOT her fault that I am there. But I live nonetheless.

We are taught from a VERY young age to turn the other cheek. You will recall the maxim "Two wrongs don't make a right." See how that can apply to this situation. A wrong has been committed against Jane. I am the result. Jane's solution is either to A. allow me to live, recognizing my right to it, or B. wrong me, in a way infinitely more sinful than Dick wronged her. I would be no more. I would never take a breath, might never even develop lungs. I would never see the world outside of Jane's womb. My mortal existence, gone. Not at the command of God, who should be the final arbiter in determining when we are through in this world, but at the request of Jane, whose "problem" can only be solved by ridding herself of me.

What if zygotes possessed cognition? What if they possessed the inherent knowledge that at ANY moment their life could be taken away from them by the very people whose parents DID allow them to live out their life. The terror that would incite within us would be nearly unbearable. Scary thought.

*I can't finish this without touching on the spiritual aspect of this. If you're not interested, skip over it. Otherwise, don't worry it'll be short.*

So Jane bears her cross. She can either take it up, as Jesus has commanded us, or throw it at His feet in a loud refusal of "It's too heavy!" Jane has been forced to bear the sin of another. One man, Dick. It is his sin that she must bear. Wow, when you think about the nature of what sin truly is, DEEP and grievous offense against God Himself, that is a HUGE cross. And just think, Jesus bore a cross greater than any that he would give us. He bore the sins of ALL humanity, he sweat BLOOD for our sins, was scourged, humiliated, beaten repeatedly, spit on, tortured, scoffed at, and all at the hands of that which He himself created. Such suffering he endured for the sins of all of us. We are called to follow in His footsteps, and specifically for Jane, to bear the sin of Dick, just as Jesus bore her sin, and Dick's, along with all of us.

It's a hard thing to do. But the path we are called to walk is a narrow one. But the rewards, infinitely greater in magnitude than the hardships we must endure by keeping on that road."

 

[Suzannah]

Great thoughts, Matt!!!!

 

[ufonium2]

Think about it this way:

In the 19th century, babies who were born before they could breathe and eat on their own died. Now, we have machines and medicines that can take a baby who was not ready for the world and keep them alive for several weeks until they reach that magical 9 month age when they suddenly become a person, or until they can breathe/eat/whatever by themselves. (Obviously I don't believe 9 months is magical at all, just clarifying in case sarcasm doesn't transfer over the internet.)

The length of prematurity that medicine can deal with gets longer every year. We can artificially support babies who would unquestionably have died had they been born a hundred years ago. Maybe in a hundred years we'll be able to support an eight-week old "fetus" outside of the womb in an ICU until it can breathe and eat on its own.

If that kid ends up not having a soul because it didn't spend a prescribed amount of time in its mother's womb, I will eat my hat.

 

[Sergius_Lucius]

A man has unique genetic data since conception and grows independently of his mother's organism. I've read an interview with the head of Embryology Department of the Moscow University and he said excellent words: "To ask if embryo looks like human is the same as ask if an old man or a child looks like human. An embryo is a human, just in very early age"

 

[prodromos]

Take note of three feast days celebrated in the church (forgive me as I can't remember all the dates).

The feast day of the conception of Anna (nine months before the feast day of the nativity of the Theotokos)

The feast day of the conception of Elizabeth (nine months before the feast day of the nativity of John th Forerunner AKA Prodromos )

The feast day of the conception of Mary, ie. the Annunciation (nine months before the feast day of the nativity of Christ)

I sense a pattern here

 

[countrymousenc]

Yes, we're already human at conception. At that point, a human being already has all the genetic information he/she's ever going to have.

What is the Orthodox teaching about when a baby has a soul? I'm guessing the answer is "at conception."

 

[Suzannah]

I don't want to sidetrack the thread but this afternoon on the radio, as I went to town for my mail, I heard an RC priest speaking about all this. He said something I had never thought of before:
that there have been studies in Canada: the findings showed that young people often feel as though their mothers *could* have aborted them, therefore they were only valuable because they weren't aborted. It was much more complicated obviously than what I am saying here, but the gist was that young people no longer see ALL human life as valuable, most especially their own, and that by extension, this attitude carries over in other areas of life such as suicide, homicidal tendencies, misplaced agression and so forth...I thought it very insightful and compassionate in the way it was presented.

I also enjoyed Sergey's professor's words...VERY WISE!!!

 

[Christianseeker]

Some other things to consider:

Abortion ruins womens lives:
When a woman feels she has to abort her child it is kind of like when an animal is caught in a trap and has to gnaw off its own leg to escape*. I have known several women who have had real problems with relationships, career and getting through school, as a result of the emotional and moral trauma they went through with abortions.

Abortion is the ultimate degradation of women:
Abortion requires women to override their natural insticts to nurture and care for their offspring. It is one of those sins that is truly a perversion because it re-trains the human spirit in a direction that God didn't intend. It is every bit as insulting and degrading to women as the FGM that is practiced in some african countries. Why can't feminists see this?

Matthew is right about picking up the cross. I just wish men and women could pick up the cross *before* anybody gets pregnant, and decide to be responsible and abstain.

*Metaphor courtesy of Frederica Mathewes-Green

------------------------------------------------
--Sarah

Note on my faith icon: I'm using the "non denominational" one because I have not yet found a denomination or church that I feel comfortable in after my experience with the Episcopal Church. I am reading a lot and exploring the Catholic and Orthodox traditions as well as Protestant churches. I don't want to mislead anyone about what my perspective is.

 

[Axion]

if life begins at conception most forms of birth control are murder.

Not true. most forms of "birth control" act before conception.

Additionally, sex itself could be seen as murder-- since all fertilized eggs don't necessarily develop completely. Often, after sex and fertilization they don't implant and are lost.

This is a false argument. Just because some eggs die naturally, some foetuses die naturally, some babies die naturally, all humans die naturally (eventually), doesn't mean that we are allowed to kill eggs, foetuses, babies or adults.

If life begins at conception sex becomes a morally ambigious act.

Why?

 

[Umut]

Does life being at conception?

I think it does.

When a baby first starts developing, it breathes through its mother, eats and drinks through its mother. It grows in its mother. It does everything. So the baby must be alive inside the womb.

but is it alive when the sperm enters the egg?

yes. the sperm entering the egg represents life. the beginning of life. if it has a beginning; if it can grow; and develop; it must have been breathing because ITS MOTHER WAS BREATHING... it must've been eating because ITS MOTHER HAD BEEN EATING... it carries all the qualities of a human being. Eat, drink, grow, develop and even sleep.

i would get philosophical but there is really no point of doing it...

it does begin at conception. in my opinion that is...

 

[Black Fog]

Many lucid responses here. I found those of Momzilla and Ufonium2 particularly cogent. I've always wondered at the incongruity in society's thinking on this issue. There are healthcare workers who, with much fanfare, spend a king's ransom to keep premature babies alive in pediatric intensive-care units (PICU), even as others blithely kill the unborn of later gestational age in "reproductive health" (RH) facilities. Do PICU babies have a "right" which RH babies lack? Does an unborn become "human" at an earlier or later stage in its gestation? If earlier, then the pro-choice position is without justification. If later, then why not save a lot of time and money, and let the PICU babies die?

A propos the notion of rights, here's an even stickier wicket. Most "progressive" types who favor abortion would be the first to insist that future generations have certain rights which constrain society's short-term interests. For example, they have reminded us time and again that we have a duty to maintain the integrity of the physical environment for the sake of those yet to come. We also have a duty to create and maintain a sound economic environment, lest our descendents inherit the tab for our conspicuous consumption. How is it, then, that future generations have a right to a clean environment and a balanced budget, but have no right to exist?!

As for Momzilla's point, I think the dispute is not about when life begins, but rather when the unborn becomes human. We can determine from the scientific evidence that life is present at all stages of gestation. If the fetus or embryo were not alive, it would be dead, and the pregnancy would terminate at that point. The question whether an entity is "human," however, invites a more elusive answer. Here science cannot help us, because, as Momzilla points out, we just don't have any idea what to look for to answer the question "Is the fetus [embryo] human?" If we say that "x is human," does the predicate "human" add anything to what we observe, or is it merely a shorthand expression for what we do observe? If we take the former view, then we're out of science and into metaphysics. If we opt for the latter view, then the term "human" is being used vacuously, and warrants no conclusion. In fact, it probably expresses a moral judgment, that "x" ought to be afforded certain rights, and that we are not at liberty to abrogate such rights. Conversely, if it is not "human" in this sense, we have no duty toward it.

And this, I submit, is precisely how the advocates of "choice" play on the vacuous use of such terms as "human," and "privacy," to corrupt political and moral discourse. To say that the fetus or embryo may be aborted because it's not human is to say nothing more than we owe it no duty because it has no rights. But this is just the point at issue. What the "Pro-choice" people are doing, then, is stating a bald conclusion that abortion is morally permissible, without offering even a semblance of justification for it. (I have tried to clarify this point somewhat in my essay Abortion is not Choice, posted elsewhere in this forum.)
Black Fog

 

[Oblio]

I've always wanted to ask this, and this seems as good a place as any, even On Topic (tm) :



If life begins at conception, why do some that are against abortion quickly add the loophole: except in cases of incest and rape ? What is the Orthodox position on those exclusions ??

 

[Markh]

probably because these people feel that the child deserves punishment for being the product of such circumstances which he /she cannot help.

 

[Oblio]

JMHO but I don't think it is that Markh, but rather that it is a cross that is too heavy for some (in their opinion) to bear.