When Does Human Life Begin?

[Natman]

We can attempt to define "human life" by whatever term we desire, however as a Christian, I believe in the inerrant word of God in His Holy scripture. I believe that to second guess His design and His intent holds grave consequenses.

Psalms 139:13-16 states...

"13 For you created my inmost being;
you knit me together in my mother's womb.
14 I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
your works are wonderful, I know that full well.
15 My frame was not hidden from you
when I was made in the secret place.
When I was woven together in the depths of the earth,
16 your eyes saw my unformed body.
All the days ordained for me
were written in your book
before one of them came to be."
​

If we believe that God creates life, and only God has or grants the authority to destroy life, then to do so, even directly after the conception, is "murder".

An unfertilized egg alone does not produce human life. A sperm cell alone does not produce human life. But when the two are brought together, ALL of the information necessesary and process programs necessary for human life are present. All that remains for it to continue to develop is a safe nutrient rich environment. This remains to be true throughout the natural lifetime of every person. Even when removed fro the womb, we are still reliant on a safe nutrient rich environment in the form of oxygen, water, food, correct temperature range and protection from the elements. Without these things we too would quickly parish, like a zygote removed from the womb.

So human life (personhood) begins at conception (if not before).

Son-cerely in Christ,
Nate

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Well, actually the bible says God knows them before they are in the womb. So if you are going to use this verse to prove that the zygote is human life, you would also need to use this verse to say that the unfertilized egg is human life. And that would mean that it was wrong for teenagers not to get pregnant, for not getting pregnant deprives this cell of the sperm it needs to develop. So I don't think this verse means that cells in every early stage of human development are equal to human life.

Am aware of no such verse, though there are many many verses that refer to knowledge while in the womb, before birth...etc, which is what I refered to. Perhaps you have a different translation. Since you speak with such authority on these matters would you mind quoting that verse?

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Well, actually, no, the penalty for destroying the "fruit" in the womb is similar to killing a neighbors cow. According to the law, you pay a fine if you hit a woman and cause an unwanted miscarriage. But you are killed if you kill the woman. The penalties are quite different.

Exodus 21


22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,​

​

Well actually as long as you insist on being so biblically technical; killing a woman was handled very different than killing a man and it depending greatly on whom you were killing, as in there were distinctions made for slaves, freeman, strangers...etc. We can hardly endorse such treatment today or even use your quote as a sharp rebuttal of my statement. In fact even if my point was over-stated as to the literal road you want to take, even the OT acknowledges that there should be punishment for committing such an act, ie causing the loss of a fetus. Hardly a pro-choice position or endorsment of such a practice.

You are correct about the NT not mentioning abortion. However, the early Christians were the first to record that abortion was murder. In general you could surmise that before it was written, especially in those days, it was already a common and widely held position. This makes it arise in the first century and that would be in keeping with saying it was a teaching of the Apostles and consistent with what our Lord taught them. Good enough for me.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

But an egg will also grow into a human if it is in a womb full of sperm. What is the difference?

I have said this many times. Are you listening? It is the beginning of human life. It is not yet a person.

A caterpillar is not yet a butterfly; A chassis on the assembly line is not yet a car; A med student is not yet a doctor; And it seems that a zygote is not yet a human. They are in the process of becoming something, but they have not yet become that something.

Would it help if I repeated that paragraph yet one more time?

I have responded many times. Why do you ask again?

It is the beginning of human life, but many think it is not yet a person.

Would it help you to understand me if I repeated that sentence again?

So it is the begining of human life but not yet a person. Can you not see my confusion? All people are human and each has a period here that can therefore be called a human life. So your statement would be it is the beginning of human life but not yet human???
You said we were both talking about a "something" which is the begining of that human life and we agee. But that then makes that "something" part of any specific human life. Yet you refuse to call that something a person.
So the logic is then that it is ok to end that life, which negates or prevents what you would then otherwise later surely call a person. That human life then ends and what later you would call a "person" never lives. Even in those terms then, when one commits such an act intentionally it is a decision regarding who shall live and who shall not. Is that not wrong no matter when that decision is made?

 

[doubtingmerle]

I don't know when life starts in the womb, but if i did, I wouldn't say- because it would give people an excuse to be able to abort at a certain time.

But why would abortion matter if the embryo was not human life?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Others (such as Peter Singer) would argue--quite convincingly to some--that post-natal infants have no inherent right to life and that their mothers' perceived self-interest supercedes the interests of the child. Therefore, according to this worldview, infanticide is a morally acceptable practice.

Gosh, who would ever argue that a mother has the right to kill a living child? Please show me where I can find this argument that you speak of. I can't imagine it is convincing.

So what do you think, Merle? Can you prove that the life of an infant has any inherent value? If you disagree with Peter Singer, can you live with those who differ with you and choose to kill their infants based on this standard?

I can't believe that anybody actually takes the argument for killing newborns seriously. Does Singer believe that there is no value in preserving human life? If so, his arguments can be written off as being out of touch with all that humans value. Or does he argue that preserving human life is an important value, but killing chidren somehow overrides this value? I can't imagine he can make that case. So in the absense of any case for infanticide I can't imagine allowing it.

What facts are those? The "objective" ones, no doubt.

Yes, of course, I refer to the objective facts, such as the facts about when the brain begins to form, and the fact that there can be no feelings, thoughts, memories, personality, etc. without a brain.

Why do you ask?

Who made it a "fact" that we ought not kill human beings for medical experimentation, anyway?

I think the rule that we should not kill humans for medical experiments comes from the shared human value that it is good to preserve human life.

Where do you think this rule comes from?

If the "objective fact" that killling a human being for medical experimentation is in dispute, then your question is moot?

I know of nobody that disputes the rule that it is wrong to kill living human beings in order to experiment on them. So why do you suggest that rule might be in dispute?

Why should I care if embryos are human or not? If their destruction can lead to my preservation, I might just want to kill 'em all.

I disagree. I place too strong a value on the preservation of existing life to value the deliberate killing of others, even if it would advance research.

 

[doubtingmerle]

We can attempt to define "human life" by whatever term we desire, however as a Christian, I believe in the inerrant word of God in His Holy scripture.

Would you be interested in a formal debate discussing whether "the inerrant word of God in His Holy scripture"? I would love to discuss this with you--or anybody else--in a formal debate. Are you game?

Psalms 139:13-16 states...

When I was woven together in the depths of the earth,
16 your eyes saw my unformed body.
​

​

Sounds like poetry to me. Would you care to explain to me how people are literally woven together in the depths of the earth? But if this is just poetry, how can you take parts of it as literal truth and others as poetic speech?

I find it odd that people would use literal interpretations of ancient poetry as a means of discovering objective truth.

And what does this passage refer to? To a zygote? To an unfertilized egg? To an embryo? To a fetus? To the components of an egg? This doesn't look like a precise statement to me. How can it be used to determine exactly which of the above are and which are not a seperate human life?

If we believe that God creates life, and only God has or grants the authority to destroy life, then to do so, even directly after the conception, is "murder".

Oh, I see. So all soldiers that kill in battle commit murder? And every act of self-defense is murder?

I disagree strongly. I do not believe all acts of killing life are murder.

An unfertilized egg alone does not produce human life. A sperm cell alone does not produce human life. But when the two are brought together, ALL of the information necessesary and process programs necessary for human life are present. All that remains for it to continue to develop is a safe nutrient rich environment. This remains to be true throughout the natural lifetime of every person. Even when removed fro the womb, we are still reliant on a safe nutrient rich environment in the form of oxygen, water, food, correct temperature range and protection from the elements. Without these things we too would quickly parish, like a zygote removed from the womb.

But how does this make an embryo human life? There is no brain, no emotions, no personality. How can that be a human life?

So human life (personhood) begins at conception (if not before).

Okay, you allow that human life may begin before conception? So you are allowing that an unfertilized egg inside a teenage girl may be human life. So that would mean that it was wrong to allow that egg to die! That would mean it was wrong not to see that she got pregnant! And yet you allow that the egg might be human life!

 

[doubtingmerle]

Am aware of no such verse, though there are many many verses that refer to knowledge while in the womb, before birth...etc, which is what I refered to. Perhaps you have a different translation. Since you speak with such authority on these matters would you mind quoting that verse?

See Jeremiah 1:5--"Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations."

That seems to refer to before Jeremiah was a zygote.

Could you show me one of the verses you are referring to?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Well actually as long as you insist on being so biblically technical; killing a woman was handled very different than killing a man and it depending greatly on whom you were killing, as in there were distinctions made for slaves, freeman, strangers...etc.

Yeah, the OT seems to be a morally inferior book to me, what with its policies concerning slavery, etc.

I would be very interested in seeing the verse that says you should treat it differently if a woman is killed than if a man is killed.

Regardless, it seems like you have not found a verse to support the case that the Bible teaches that the killing of a fetus was murder.

We can hardly endorse such treatment today or even use your quote as a sharp rebuttal of my statement. In fact even if my point was over-stated as to the literal road you want to take, even the OT acknowledges that there should be punishment for committing such an act, ie causing the loss of a fetus. Hardly a pro-choice position or endorsment of such a practice.

Huh? I think all pro-choice people would decare that justice should be served if a person maliciously strikes a pregnant woman and causes an unwanted miscarriage. What makes you think that some people wouldn't want such a person punished?

You are correct about the NT not mentioning abortion. However, the early Christians were the first to record that abortion was murder. In general you could surmise that before it was written, especially in those days, it was already a common and widely held position. This makes it arise in the first century and that would be in keeping with saying it was a teaching of the Apostles and consistent with what our Lord taught them. Good enough for me.

Well, you are doing a lot of surmising here. I would be interested in seeing the quote you mention, and the date of the quote.

Please remember that the early church appears to have been widely fractured, and many different people wrote different things. So it is difficult to see how yone can go from one quote from one Christian to conclude that everybody agreed with him.

 

[doubtingmerle]

So it is the begining of human life but not yet a person. Can you not see my confusion? All people are human and each has a period here that can therefore be called a human life. So your statement would be it is the beginning of human life but not yet human???

Okay, maybe I did not express myself too clearly. I went back and edited it to read, "It is the beginning stage in the development into a human life, but many think it is not yet a person." I hope this clears up the confusion.

 

[Natman]

Would you be interested in a formal debate discussing whether "the inerrant word of God in His Holy scripture"? I would love to discuss this with you--or anybody else--in a formal debate. Are you game?

There is another thread in these forums to discuss that topic.

Sounds like poetry to me. Would you care to explain to me how people are literally woven together in the depths of the earth? But if this is just poetry, how can you take parts of it as literal truth and others as poetic speech?

I find it odd that people would use literal interpretations of ancient poetry as a means of discovering objective truth.

This is one reason why the Bible is said to be "inspired" or "in breathed". The ideas are breathed into the minds of the writer, which the wote them down in their own language (Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic), using their own writing style. The author of the Psalms, presumably David, was a lyracist and poet.

It is very common for Biblical writers to use mataphoric and parbalic images as well as literal and historic information in their writings to get a point across. The study of hermenutics will help you to differentiate these styles, although many of them are obvious even to the untrained layman.

And what does this passage refer to? To a zygote? To an unfertilized egg? To an embryo? To a fetus? To the components of an egg? This doesn't look like a precise statement to me. How can it be used to determine exactly which of the above are and which are not a seperate human life?

None of the above. This passage and others like it speak to the soveriegnty of God.

Oh, I see. So all soldiers that kill in battle commit murder? And every act of self-defense is murder?

No. The Bible tells us to submit to our government, even unto the sword.God ordains and holds governments accountable.

Rom 13:1-5
"1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. "
​

This is not to say that you are not accountable for attrocities you yourself commit while at war.

But how does this make an embryo human life? There is no brain, no emotions, no personality. How can that be a human life?

Like I said in my previous post, at the point of conception, ALL of the information and programs processes for human life exist and if left alone would continue to process on through birth, life and hopefully, natural death. The Bible says that we consist of body, soul and spirit. Without any clearer definition, the point of conception would be the most logical point in which this would occur.

Okay, you allow that human life may begin before conception? So you are allowing that an unfertilized egg inside a teenage girl may be human life. So that would mean that it was wrong to allow that egg to die! That would mean it was wrong not to see that she got pregnant! And yet you allow that the egg might be human life!

Not really. Certain verses might lead us to believe that, but we must remember that God can see in both directions through the tunnel of time. The fact that He "knows us before we are born", "in the depths of the earth", points to the fact of His omniscience and fore-knowledge. He knows which eggs will be fertilized and which ones will be destroyed before being fertilized.

I tried to make it clear that a sperm cell or an unfertilzed egg are not human life, but once joined, they are. They each contain part but not ALL of the information necessary for human life.

Son-cerely in Christ,
Nate

 

[A. believer]

Gosh, who would ever argue that a mother has the right to kill a living child? Please show me where I can find this argument that you speak of. I can't imagine it is convincing.

Taking Life: Humans

Considering the fact that the man won a prestigous award in ethics, apparently, not everyone agrees with you. But even if they did, since when does general agreement equal "objective fact?"

I can't believe that anybody actually takes the argument for killing newborns seriously. Does Singer believe that there is no value in preserving human life? If so, his arguments can be written off as being out of touch with all that humans value. Or does he argue that preserving human life is an important value, but killing chidren somehow overrides this value? I can't imagine he can make that case. So in the absense of any case for infanticide I can't imagine allowing it.

He attempts to make a case for mothers having the option of having their disabled children "euthanized" up to 28 days after birth. Why should this be surprising, though? If you don't think that infanticide could be widely accepted because it's "obviously objectively wrong," you're not paying attention. Partial birth abortion has been going on for years. Or is it an "objective fact" that babies are human when they've completed their journey through the birth canal, but only "opinion" that they're human when only the head is outside the mother's body? There's an interesting "scientific debate" for you. How much of the child has to exit the birth canal before the "fetus" becomes a human being?

Yes, of course, I refer to the objective facts, such as the facts about when the brain begins to form, and the fact that there can be no feelings, thoughts, memories, personality, etc. without a brain.

Why do you ask?

Because facts must be interpreted within the context of a worldview in order to have any meaning. Your arguments repeatedly rely on begged questions favoring your own worldview, and I see no indication that you even recognize that. And the irony is, you seem to fancy yourself quite clever for confronting Christians with our presuppositions as if our presuppositions are evidence of some inherently blind bias with the implication being that your interpretation of reality is "objective," and ours isn't, as if an "objective interpretation" is even a philosophically coherent concept.

I think the rule that we should not kill humans for medical experiments comes from the shared human value that it is good to preserve human life.

Where do you think this rule comes from?

This "rule" comes from the fact that we're created by God in His image with the innate knowledge of the sanctity of human life. The knowledge of this "rule" though, is sometimes unrighteously suppressed as it is in our current culture that rejects the notion of the sanctity of human life. It was suppressed in Nazi Germany as well when, among other atrocities, medical experiments were routinely performed on concentration camp victims. Hitler's social Darwinism and Peter Singer's "speciesism" are two worldviews that blatantly reject the rule. Most modern proponents of abortion, embryonic stem cell research, in vitro fertilization, etc are a little more reticent about rejecting it so blatantly, so instead, they quibble about things like the definition of "human" and "life," and such.

I disagree. I place too strong a value on the preservation of existing life to value the deliberate killing of others, even if it would advance research.

Disagree all you want, but if you want to be consistent, just don't impose your "subjective values" on those who differ with you. Or better yet, recognize the incoherence of your argument and repent.

 

[fluffy_rainbow]

I hold an opinion that goes against the cliche "life begins at conception". I believe human life begins when the zygote attaches itself to the lining of the woman's uterus. That is why I am not morally opposed to hormonal contraceptives or the morning after pill. They don't terminate a pregnancy. They prevent one from happening. A woman will have many times in her life in which the egg will become fertilized by a sperm, but most of the time the body naturally flushes it because it cannot implant. Does that mean we have possibly thirty or forty miscarriages? Of course not! A miscarriage is the spontaneous ending of a pregnancy. If pregnancy does not biologically occur until after implantation takes place then the logical answer to the question "when does life begin?" would be when implantation takes place, not the actual conception.

 

[AdJesumPerMariam]

at conception

 

[doubtingmerle]

A. believer, previously you had said:

Others (such as Peter Singer) would argue--quite convincingly to some--that post-natal infants have no inherent right to life and that their mothers' perceived self-interest supercedes the interests of the child. Therefore, according to this worldview, infanticide is a morally acceptable practice.

And when I asked you to support this claim you responded with:

Taking Life: Humans

And it turns out that Peter Singer is an anti-abortionist! In no way is Singer making the claim that mothers can kill their infants if they choose! And he quotes nobody who says that it is okay to kill infants! Unbelievable! Your claim is simply wrong!

Please show me one person who actually finds the argument quite convincing that it is acceptable to kill infants if they get in the way of their mother's self-interest.

So I think we should just ignore the ridiculous argument that there are enlightened, sane people out there who find it "quite convincing" that "post-natal infants have no inherent right to life and that their mothers' perceived self-interest supercedes the interests of the child." You simply have presented no evidence for that claim, have you?

 

[doubtingmerle]

I hold an opinion that goes against the cliche "life begins at conception". I believe human life begins when the zygote attaches itself to the lining of the woman's uterus.

Oh, but many people here insist that they know the answer as to when human life begins. I suspect they will refuse to listen to you.

A woman will have many times in her life in which the egg will become fertilized by a sperm, but most of the time the body naturally flushes it because it cannot implant. Does that mean we have possibly thirty or forty miscarriages? Of course not! A miscarriage is the spontaneous ending of a pregnancy. If pregnancy does not biologically occur until after implantation takes place then the logical answer to the question "when does life begin?" would be when implantation takes place, not the actual conception.

Interesting. And are we to believe that all of those many fertilized eggs are people with immortal souls? Are we to believe that most of the people you meet in heaven will have lived only a few hours as a fertilized egg? Those who teach that these zygotes are humans and go to heaven have to deal with such issues.

 

[doubtingmerle]

If you don't think that infanticide could be widely accepted because it's "obviously objectively wrong," you're not paying attention.

Why do you put those words in quotes? Those are not my words.

I cannot imagine sane, reasoning people thinking that infanticide is good. You have not presented one sane, reasoning person who thinks that infanticide is good. So if nobody beleives it, why keep bringing it up?

Partial birth abortion has been going on for years. Or is it an "objective fact" that babies are human when they've completed their journey through the birth canal, but only "opinion" that they're human when only the head is outside the mother's body? There's an interesting "scientific debate" for you. How much of the child has to exit the birth canal before the "fetus" becomes a human being?

Why are you mentioning this? We are talking about whether a fetus can be a person before it has a brain. We are not discussing the position in the birth canal. We are discussing something that has no brain.

Can you get with the program, please?

Because facts must be interpreted within the context of a worldview in order to have any meaning. Your arguments repeatedly rely on begged questions favoring your own worldview, and I see no indication that you even recognize that.

No, I am not aware of a "begged question" to which you refer. Could you give me an example of one of the "begged questions" you are complaining about?

And the irony is, you seem to fancy yourself quite clever for confronting Christians with our presuppositions

What did I say that makes you think I fancy myself quite clever? Could you give me an example of something that implies that?

The knowledge of this "rule" though, is sometimes unrighteously suppressed as it is in our current culture that rejects the notion of the sanctity of human life.

Our society does not reject the notion of the value of human life at all. It is universally accepted.

But the "sanctity of life"? What exactly does "sanctity" mean, anyway?

It was suppressed in Nazi Germany as well when, among other atrocities, medical experiments were routinely performed on concentration camp victims.

The Nazis did evil things. What does that have to do with the price of eggs in China? Would you like to get back on subject, please?

they quibble about things like the definition of "human" and "life," and such.

But are not you quibbling about the definition of human life? For you insist that an unfertilized egg is not human life, and that a fertilized egg is. But how do you know that you are right? Don't you need to prove that before you condemn those who differ?

Or better yet, recognize the incoherence of your argument and repent.

Where is my argument incoherent? Please show me.

 

[doubtingmerle]

The author of the Psalms, presumably David, was a lyracist and poet.

It is very common for Biblical writers to use mataphoric and parbalic images as well as literal and historic information in their writings to get a point across. The study of hermenutics will help you to differentiate these styles, although many of them are obvious even to the untrained layman.

Yes, this is the point I was making. The psalms use poetic language. It is wrong to use the literal interpretation of poetic language to make a poem say something it wasn't made to say. This is the problem with people who take such verses from the Psalms and try to make them sound like they are saying that the embryo is a person.

Like I said in my previous post, at the point of conception, ALL of the information and programs processes for human life exist and if left alone would continue to process on through birth, life and hopefully, natural death.

A skin cell that falls off your body has all the information for human life. But it is not a human, is it?

And no, a zygote, if left to itself does not become a person.

Could it not be that the zygote has the information necessary to be a person and that it directs the cells to develop into a person, but it is not yet a person? Why is that logically impossible?

The Bible says that we consist of body, soul and spirit. Without any clearer definition, the point of conception would be the most logical point in which this would occur.

But how can a zygote be said to have a soul? It has no brain. What functions of a soul can occur if there is no brain? So how do you know it has a soul?

 

[DrBubbaLove]

For Merle the doubting one,
Jgs 13:7 “ …”for the boy shall be consecrated to God from the womb, until the day of his death.”
Job 11:18 “Why then did you bring me forth from the womb? I should have died and no eye have seen me.”
Job 31:15 “Did not he who made me in the womb make him? Did not the same One fashion us before our birth?”
Job 31:18 “Though like a father God reared me from my youth, guiding me even from my mother’s womb”
Ps 139:13 “You formed my inmost being, you knot me in my mother’s womb.”
Jgs16: 7 “…for I have been consecrated to God from my mother’s womb.”
Is 44:2 “Thus says the Lord who made you, your help, who formed you from the womb”
Is 44.24 “ Thus says the Lord, your redeemer, who formed you from the womb:”
Jer 1:5 “ Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I dedicated you, a prophet to the nations I appointed you.”
Is 49:1 “ The Lord called me from birth, from my mother’s womb he gave me my name.”
Is 49:5 “ For now the Lord has spoken who formed me as his servant from the womb.”
Lk 1:15 “for he will be great in the sight of the Lord. He will drink neither wine nor strong drink. He will be filled with the holy Spirit even from his mother’s womb,”
Lk 1:44 “ For at the moment of the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the infant in my womb leaped for joy.”

May have left out a couple, but the point is pretty clear. Unlike you, we are not free to twist the words of Jeremiah and make it say whatever we wish. If souls were known before conception as your and the Mormon interpretation of that verse implies, then it contradicts all these other verses indicating a beginning point. It implies an existence of our souls before this life. While that may sit well with Mormons and probably others, we do not interpret Jeremiah that way.

You claimed you (and ostensibly pro-choicers) agree that there should be punishment for injury causing a miscarriage. But due to your other stance punishment would only be merited if the baby is wanted. So at last we see you admit in your own words to the truth of it all. It is not whether or not this is a human life, but whether or not it is wanted. Which is exactly why we kept comparing “her choice” to deciding whether a person or a group of people are “wanted”.

 

[AdJesumPerMariam]

And no, a zygote, if left to itself does not become a person.

In fact, NONE of us, in any stage would survive on our own. We are all dependant on someone else.